You are on page 1of 10

Application of a semi ..

empirical sputtering model to secondary electron

s. A. Schwarz
Bellcore, Red Bank, New Jersey 07701-7040
(Received 26 January 1990; accepted for publication 10 May 1990)
A semi-empirical sputtering model is demonstrated to provide a good description of electron-
induced secondary electron emission. A simple formula for the yield of secondary electrons as
a function of primary energy, incident angle, and material parameters is obtained. In
comparison to the most commonly employed semi-empirical model, the present model
provides a superior fit to the universal energy dependence curve, a better description of energy
and mass effects at off-normal incidence, and additional insights into factors affecting the
magnitude of the yield. The bulk and surface contributions to the yield magnitude are
separately deduced from experimental data in the literature. Trends in these contributions are
assessed for metals and insulators.

I. INTRODUCTION and the probability B that a secondary electron will escape

The ejection of atoms or electrons from a solid surface from the surface. The present model describes a nonlinear
under energetic particle bombardment is generally the end depth distribution for secondary electron creation which
result of a collision-cascade process. Sputtering and second- strongly impacts the ratio omaJEmax and therefore also af-
aryelectron (SE) emission have therefore been described by fects the values of B and Ed deduced from experimental data.
similar theoretical treatments. In the present study, the Tabulated measurements of 8 rrlax and Emax lend support to
semi-empirical sputtering model of Schwarz and Helms l.2 is the present model. The deduced values of B and Ed reveal
applied to SE emission. This model emphasizes properties of trends with metal valency and free electron energy loss in
the collision cascade as a whole, as opposed to the most com- metals, and with electron affinity in insulators.
monly employed semi-empirical model 3.4 which focuses on This paper is organized as follows: The next section de-
the interaction of the primary (incident) particle with the rives the standard model in its simplest form, and describes
surface region. The present model describes the SE yield 8 as common approximations for the primary range R and mean
a function of primary energy, incident angle, and material
parameters and provides a useful visualization of several im-
portant experimental trends. A simple formula for the SE 1.2.,-----------------...,
yield is derived which may be of use in simulations of such • present model (n= 4/3)
processes as vacuum device operation, electron microscopy, 1.0
o standard mOdel (n= 4/3)

electron spectroscopy, and plasma-wall interactions. a standard mOdel (n= 5/3)

The basic features of SE emission are well described in x empirical (Vaughn)
the review of Seiler. 5 The SE yield 0, defined as the average o.eJ ~
number onow-energy ( < 50 eV) secondary electrons eject- I
~IJ 06j"
ed into vacuum per incident primary electron, attains a max-
imum value 8max of approximately 1 in metals, at a primary
energy Emax of several hundred eV. Values of omax and Emax
in insulators are typically much higher. Baroody6 observed 004 ~:
that plots of the yield energy dependence, normalized to
these maximum values, tended towards a universal curve. I ""xx
Such a plot is shown in Fig. 1, in which the region of typical
experimental results, as indicated by Dionne 7 in an analo-
gous plot, is bounded by the two solid lines. A proper model
TI region of experimental results (Dionne)

must therefore predict the shape of the universal curve and

the dependence of omax and E ma , on experimental param-
eters. A semi-empirical model should, in addition, be simple
in concept and application.
The most commonly employed semi-empirical model 3 •4 FIG. 1. The universal dependence of the SE yield 8 vs the primary energy E"
(referred to below and elsewhere as the "standard" model) (with yield and energy normalized to their maximum values) is indicated
and the present semi-empirical model are of comparable by the region of typical experimental results between the solid lines (after
Dionne 7 ). The present model, Eq. (22), provides a good fit to the data
simplicity and are therefore compared extensively below, (solid circles), The standard model, Eqs. (5) and (8), is plotted for two-
Two key parameters in both models are the energy Ed ex- range (R) power laws: n = 4/3 (open circles) and n = 5/3 (open squares),
pended in creating a single secondary electron in the bulk, Vaughn's empirical equation, Eq. (11), is also represented (crosses). 14

2382 J. Appl. Phys. 68 (5), 1 September 1990 0021-8979/90/172382-10$03.00 @ 1990 American Institute of Physics 2382

Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see
secondary escape depth A which are employed in both mod- aya'l which provides a good empirical description of mea-
els. The present model is derived in Sec. III, and it is demon- sured escape depths is
strated that the parameters B, Ed' and A are essentially
equivalent in the two models. Section IV compares both (7)
models to experimental data as a function of primary energy, where, in a crude but effective approximation, the average
incident angie, and material parameters. Trends in the es- ionization energy is assumed proportional to the first ioniza-
cape probability B and the secondary creation energy Ed are tion potential J of the isolated atom. With n = 4/3, Eq. (5)
analyzed here. In Sec. V, the limitations and approximations may be rewritten as
of the present model are discussed. A brief comparison to onorrn = 1.11 E n~lf::'3 [1 - exp( - 2.34 E ;~~m ) ], (8)
more refined models of SE emission is also presented. The
paper concludes with a detailed summary. where the yield and energy are normalized to their maxi-
mum values given by
Emax = 10.6 I Jl4Z \/4 (9)
The standard SE emission model developed by Salow3 8 max =0.39 B(E",ajEd ). (10)
and Bruining,4 and refined by Lye and Dekker8 and others, Equations (9) and (10) are similar to the Emax relations
is briefly described here in its simplest form. 5 The yield b of derived by Ono and Kanaya'l which they demonstrate pro-
low-energy electrons is given by vide a good description of experimental maxima in metals.

8= C'
n(x,Ep )/(x)dx, (1)
Substituting typical values of I and Z into these equations,
one finds that Emax is approximately 0.5 keY, as required,
and lim", is on the order of 1, provided that Ed-lOO eV
where n (x,Ep ) is the number of secondary electrons at depth
(assuming B,-O.S). This large value of Ed is comparable to
x produced by a primary electron of energy Ep, and/(x) is the energy loss for the first collision of the primary. 9 On the
the probability that a secondary electron generated at depth
other hand, it is frequently assumed that Ed is the energy
x travels to and escapes from the sample surface. The func-
barrier for secondary emission (a few eV), represented by q;
tion n (x,Ep ) is assumed proportional to the stopping power
(the work function) or q; + EF (the Fermi energy) in met-
(energy loss rate)
als, and by Eg + X (energy gap plus electron affinity) in
1 dE
n(xE)=--- (2)
insulators. l3 This discrepancy will be examined in the fol-
, p Ed dx ' lowing sections.
where Ed is the average energy required to create a second- The normalized energy dependence given by Eq. (8) for
ary electron. The function/ex) is given by n = 4/3 is plotted in Fig. 1 (open circles) along with the
corresponding equation for n = 5/3 (squares), essentially
lex) =Bexp( -X/A), (3) reproducing the curves in the analogous figure from
where the surface escape probability B is less than 1 and A- is Dionne. 7 It is clear that the n = 4/3 curve provides a good
the SE escape depth. If it is further assumed that the energy fit at low energies while the 5/3 curve works well at high
loss rate in the near-surface region is constant, H such that energies, consistent with the observed power dependence of
the range. Vaughn 14 has discussed the need for a more accu-
dE Ep
(4) rate equation for the purpose of vacuum electronic device
- dx =R' simulation. He proposed the following empirical formula:
where R is the primary range, then solution ofEq. ( 1) yields
(11 )
E A-
o= B _P - [1 - exp ( - R / A) ] . (5) where k = 0.25 for E norm > 1 and 0.62 for E norm < 1. The
Ed R empirical equation is also plotted in Fig. I (x's).
It is of interest to insert some standard approximations For off-normal incidence of the primary electrons, the
for the range R and escape depth A into the yield equation in yield is observed to increase slightly at low energies (where
order to examine the yield dependence on material param- the range R is on the order of the escape depth A) and more
eters. 9 A typical approximation for the rangelO.]I R (in em) substantially at higher energies. This effect is treated in the
which provides a good description of various energy dissipa- standard model 15 by replacing R by R cos e where e = 0 at
tion experiments is normal incidence. With this substitution, the following rela-
tions are obtained:
where N is the atomic density (cm - 3) and Z is the atomic - l/n
( 12a)
number. (The prefactor in this equation is approximately
constant with Ep expressed in units of keY. Energies are
therefore expressed in keY in all of the equations.) The ener- 8(e)~1 (E E ) ( 12b)
0(0)- p ~ max ,
gy exponent n, as determined from energy dissipation ex-
periments, is ~ 4/3 in the energy range of interest here (near
E max ), and -5/3 at higher primary energies. 5,!2 A useful 8(0)
--;::::; ( cos O)"(E'p ~ E max )• (12c)
formula for the escape depth developed by Ono and Kan- 8(0) ,

2383 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 68, No.5, 1 September 1990 S. A. Schwarz 2383

Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see
Vaughn 14 recommends an empirical fit based on a first-or- This equation is identical to Eq. (5) of the standard model in
der Taylor expansion of the cos function (which accounts to the limit R ).). and therefore indicates that the parameter A, is
some extent for the large fraction of primary energy lost also essentially equivalent in the two models. The stopping
through the surface at high e) given by power proportionality in Eq. (16) is common to many mod-
els and theories. Roughly half of the secondaries within one
Emax ({1) = 1 + k e 2,
(13a) escape depth of the surface are directed outward, suggesting
Emux (0) s-
that the escape probability B is ~O.5 in the absence of any
("nax (8) = 1 +k ()2/2, (l3b) extraneous surface barrier.
8 max (0) s For a range R which is small compared to the cylinder
radius, a cylindrical affected volume is not reasonable. In the
where k, is a smoothness factor varying from 0 for a rough
semi-empirical sputtering model, J a spherical affected vol-
surface to ~O.5 for a smooth surface. The magnitude of k,
ume centered at the surface is assumed at very low primary
and the factor of 2 in Eq. (13b) will be discussed in the
energies, so that the probability of SE creation is a function
context of the present model.
only of the distance from the point of impact. The volume of
this sphere, in analogy to Eq. (15), is given by
Monte Carlo simulations ofSE emission 16 or sputtering At higher primary energies, the affected volume must be-
frequently generate an image of the primary collision cas- come elongated, approaching a cylindrical geometry. The
cade. On viewing such an image, it becomes evident that simplest analytical approach is to perturb the sphere into an
particle ejection can occur late in the collision cascade. The ellipsoid. 1 The relevant formula for the area of intersection
computed yield in these simulations is basically the number with the surface (1TC 2 ) of an ellipsoid of major radius a and
of displaced particles generated within the escape depth of minor radius b, centered at a depth d, is [from the ellipsoid
the surface with momentum directed outward. A similar vi- relation Cd 10)2 + (c/b)2 = 1J
sualization motivates the semi-empirical model of Schwarz
and Helmsl,2 in which properties of the collision cascade as a (18)
whole, rather than of the primary-surface interaction, are The volume of the ellipsoid jrrab 2 is again fixed by Eq. (17)
emphasized. The derivation proceeds as foHows: so that
The number of secondaries created in the collision cas-
cade is approximated as
The ellipsoid is centered at depth d = R 12 with major radius
a = r + R /2, so that the ellipsoid is symmetric with respect
where Ed is the average energy loss in the SE creation event to the assumed straight line path of the primary electron.
and in transit between creation events, This relation is simi- This geometrical construction is illustrated in Fig. 2, where
lar to other standard approximations for lid 17 and is equal to the dimensions are those obtained at energy Em,x for the
the integral of n(x,Ed ) in Eg. (2) over the range R, so that n = 4/3 case. Defining r = R 12r and using Eq, (19), we
the parameter Ed is essentially equivalent in the present and have
standard models.
Assume, momentarily, that the primary electron travels d=rr, (20a)
a straight line path of length R into the material, creating a a = (l + r)r, (20b)
cylindrical affected volume of radius b. The actual primary 1 r3 ,2
b~ =-=--. (20c)
path and collision cascade shape are not critical, since the SE
a 1 +y
yield is determined primarily in the near surface region. The
From Eq. (18), the following simple formula for the SE
cylinder indicates that the probability of secondary creation
yield is readily obtained:
is a function only of the distance from the path of the pri-
mary. The volume of the cylinder is defined as
8 = B rrr2 _1_ [1 _(_r_Yl (21a)
..12 l+r l+r) J
where ). 3 is the average volume within the collision cascade
E )2/3 1 + 2
containing one secondary electron. The parameter A, is as- = 1.211 _P
( Ed
r . (2Ib)
sumed to be the SE escape depth, which is approximately the (1 + r)3
mean vertical distance between collisions traveled by a sec-
ondary anywhere within the actual collision cascade. This Substituting Eq. (6) for the range (with n = 4/3) and Eq.
assumption is discussed further in Sec. V. The number of (7) for the escape depth gives
secondaries within a surface disk of thickness )., i.e., within
one escape depth of the surface, is rrb 2,1, 1,1,3 which, multi- " 2 8 E2I3 1 + 1.44 E norm (22)
unorm::=·O norm J '
plied by the escape probability B and utilizing Eqs, (15) and (1 + 0.72 E norrn )-
(4) gives where
E = 9.0(lZ I!'IE Y3) (23)
= B P- ~=
rrb 2 Emux
8=B (16)
,1,2 Ed R and

2384 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 68. No, 5, 1 September 1990 S, A. Schwarz 2384

Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see


bee) (cos {J)~~2

--;:::;; (l (25d)
r 0(0)
These equations have significant implications as discussed
vacuum shortly.

A. Energy dependence
The energy dependence of the SE yield in Eq. (22) is

--------------v----------- ~- indicated in Fig. 1 by the solid circles. For E > 10 the

ellipsoidal perturbation is inaccurate and on;n;'~st in;tead
" employ Eg. (16). Equation (22) is also inaccurate when
E norm < ·-0,5 where the approximations for Rand l1d [Egs.
R/2 e6) and ( 14) J are no longer valid. Appropriate corrections
are considered in Sec. V, Despite these limitations in the low-
and high-energy regimes, the simple equation derived from
the present model clearly provides a superior fit to experi-
ment over the entire illustrated energy range. The angle de-
pendence results described below suggest that this good fit is
not accidental, but rather reflects the importance of the cas-
r cade geometry.

B. Angle dependence
R· range '--
A wealth of data for the effect ofthe angle of incidence of
). • escape depth the primary electron on the magnitude of the SE yield pro-
vides the most important supporting evidence for the present
model. Of particular interest are three observations which
FIG. 2. The geometric construction employed in the present model. R is the are not explained by the standard modeL First is the relative-
range of the primary electron, /l is the mean secondary escape depth, and ris
proportional to ),E ~i) [Eg. (22) J. The illustrated dimensions occur at ener- ly weak dependence of Oma, , as compared to E max ' on inci-
gy Em", (n =0 4/3) where R /2r = 0.72 and R / A ,= 2.3. dent angle, as noted empirically in Eq. (13). Second is the
rapid rise of the yield at high primary energies, where
0(8)18(0) is approximated by (cos e) -'I with 1] > 1. Third
is the apparent dependence of the cosine exponent "17 on
Dmax =0.58 BCEnmJEd)ZI:'. (24) atomic number Z.
Figure 3 shows data from Salehi and Flinn t5 for the
Equations (23) and (24) for the maxima resemble those of
the standard model, Eqs. (9) and (10), however, Emax now incident angle dependence of the yield ratio omax (B) /
omax (0) and the energy ratio Em"x Ce)/Emax (0). For con-
depends on Ed while Dmax is proportional to E ~;~ rather
stant fl, the standard model predicts that the yield and ener-
than E max ' independently of the value of n assumed. The
gy ratios should have the same dependence on incident angle
ellipsoidal perturbation producing Eq. (21) does not ap-
while the present model predicts that the yield ratio should
proach the cylindrical limit at high energies as expressed in
vary as the 2/3 power of the energy ratio [Eq. (25b) J. The
Eq. (16) but is reasonable within the energy range of interest
present model would therefore indicate that the slope of the
here (El\orm < -10).
yield curve in the log-log plot of Fig. 3 should be 2/3 the
For off-normal incidence, a rather complex expression
slope of the energy curve, rather than equal to it. The data in
was obtained in the semi-empirical sputtering model by tilt-
fact indicates a slope reduction of approximately a factor of
ing the ellipsoid along the direction of incidence. 1 Similar
2, accounting for this factor in the empirical equation, Eq.
results may be obtained however, as in the standard medel,
( 13b). As suggested by Eq. (13b), this effect is generally
by replacing the range R by R cos (} [r by ]I cos (J in Eq.
evident! 8 20 and receives a simple explanation in the present
(21 ) J. In other words, the lateral motion of the primary
model. The present model dictates that, for n = 4/3 in Eq.
electron is assumed irrelevant; only the rate of energy loss
(25a), the energy ratio should vary as (cos 8) ~ \ which, in a
with depth is important. In this case
Taylor expansion as in Eq. (13a), would yield a k, value of
E ma, (8) 0.5. This is consistent with the smooth surface value of k
......:.::..::.:..__ = (cos 8) - [[/(n - V:I)I C2Sa)
Emax (0) suggested by Vaughn. 14 s

2385 J< Appl. Phys., Vol. 68, No.5, i September 1990 S. A. Schwarz 2385

Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see
l.J- ~~~~:~~:-----------­ '" ] """'" ;;.;;, ...-;.;;;.,.;;---------- ~-(
~ I
2.0 1 , .... &(6) 6(0)/ooS6 :

~II~ 1.°1 -.----- 3

J J 0.6i
o I ~~.:...:-----
CAl (a)

-1.0 ------,-----,---'1- ,---
C.2~ a o 0.2 0.4 D.S O.B 1.0

1 - cos a
o I 0

o 0.2 0.4 O.S 0.8 1.0

-In cos 9

FIG. 3. Experimental data of Salehi and Flinn" for the relative increase of
the energy maximum (open circles) and yield maximum (open triangles) ate) = 8 (O)/cos e
as a function of cos f) (log-log) for the amorphous glass
(V ,0,l07 (P,O,)()3 . The present model predicts that the slope of the lower
curve should be 2/3 that of the upper curve; the standard model predicts
equal slopes for the two curves; a strict stopping power proportionality
would predict zero slope for the upper curve.

A typical plot of the yield variation with incident angle,

with primary energy as a parameter, is given in Fig. 4(a) o 0,2 0.4 0.6 O.S 1.0
(from the data of Yang and Hoffman 20 for the polymer 1 - cos e
Kapton). The predictions of the present model are shown in
Fig. 4(b). Also shown are dotted curves indicating a simple FIG. 4. (a) Experimental data from Yang and Hoffmall 20 for the relative
yield increase vs 1 cos O. in the polymer Kapton. The parameter is the
(cos 8) - I dependence. The standard model, Eq. (12c). in- _00

approximate value of the primary energy EI' normalized to Em",' (b) Pre-
dicates that the plotted data should lie below the dotted diction of the present model (n ,= 4/3) from Eqs. (22) and (25). The dot-
curve, while the present model, Eq. (25d), shows that the ted curves (llcos B) would not be exceeded in the standard model.
(cos 0) - t dependence may easily be exceeded. This large
angular dependence is also indicated by the observation [3 J
If it is assumed that the range R is proportional to E;
0(8) = (cos (1) - 1)
(26) with n held constant, then the standard model predicts that
8""" is proportional to Em", while the present model predicts
where 1] varies from 1.3 for light elements to 0.8 for heavy that 8 max is proportional to E ;:;,. Figure 5 (a) shows a plot
elements. The explanation for the atomic number Z depen- of om", vs. Emax from the data compiled by SeHer. l (Where a
dence of the exponent Tf lies in the fact that, at a given energy range of values were listed, the mean value is plotted.) Fig-
Ep. Enorm = EplEmax is much larger in the low Z material ure 5 (b) is a similar plot for insulating compounds based on
owing to the Z dependence of Em ax [Eq. (23)]. InFig.4(b), the data compilation of Grais and Bastawros,10 where the
Tf values of 0.8 and 1.3 correspond roughly to E aorrn values of numbers in the figure correspond to the numbering system
2 and 4, respectively. employed in that publication. Curves for 8 max <X Emax
In summary, the relatively slow variation of Om ax with (dashed) and 8 max a::.E;!.;x (solid) are drawn so that they
incident angle () as compared to E max , the (cos 8)- 'I depen- approximately bisect the data points. The solid curves of the
dence of the yield with 71 exceeding 1, and the dependence of present model provide a better description of the data, indi-
1/ on atomic number and energy, are accounted for in the cating a sublinear dependence of 8 m3 x on Emax. The scatter of
present model. the plotted data is attributed to variations in the surface es-
cape probability B, as discussed below.
It is significant to note that, based on Eg. (19), the val-
c. Material dependence ues of Ed producing the two solid curves in Fig. 5 are ~ 60
Tabulations of experimental data for 8 max and Emax in e V for the metals and - 5 e V for the insulators assuming,
metals and insulators are examined below to demonstrate reasonably, that B is approximately 0.5 in both cases. [It is
that Dmax has a weaker dependence than Emax on material shown below that Ed = 60 eV provides a good fit to experi-
parameters. Values of the secondary creation energy Ed and mental Emux values in Eq. (23), further justifying the as-
the surface escape probability B are then deduced from the sumption that B~O.5.] The low Ed in insulators is on the
data and trends in these parameters are assessed. order of the energy gap or the bulk plasmon energy_ The high

2386 J. App\. Phys" Vo\. 68, No, 5, i September 1990 S. A. Schwarz 2386

Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see
1.5 - (a) ,78 the escape depth and range. The values of the escape proba-
~( 79
bility B deduced from Fig. 5 (b) using Eq. (24) are shown in
31 47 75 Fig. 6, where Ed is held constant at 5 eV. These values are
50 2 '_1
26 74 plotted as a function ofthe electron affinity X as tabulated by
~; 1 ~
1iI 5 ~~ 72 9C Grais and Bastawros. to The plot clearly shows a saturation
1.0 '4
30 e'
of the escape probability at 0.5 for low X values and a 1I;y
dependence for X> 1 eV. An inverse dependence on the sur-
38 ~ J!56 57
,'37 face barrier is predicted by the transport theory of sputter-
E~x lA' 55 ing. 22 The saturation effect is expected when X is less than
,19 metals
the average emission energy of a few eV. Grais and Bastaw-
0 0.5 i.O ros 10 note that no dear trend for B is observed in the stan-
Emax (keV) dard model when Ed is assumed equal to Eg + X.
The insulators with high electron affinity are observed
to have relatively low Ernax values in Fig. 5 (b). Since the
-,- 10 surface barrier is high, the emitted secondaries arise from a
I , ,,
, 9 higher energy portion of the internal secondary energy dis-
15-1 tribution. The inelastic mean free path is a strong function of

energy and decreases rapidly in the few eV region as the
energy is raised. A small mean free path or escape depth, in
7 turn, leads to a smaller EmaK in either model. The low value
Eiiflax of Ed for insulators in the present mode! is correlated with
5~ ,,
the large observed escaped depths.
--,- X> 2eV
The analogous exercise of determining the surface fac-
--- ~::i:~::~Jr
,, tor B from the experimental data for metals has, to the au-
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 thor's knowledge, not been reported. The values of B de-
Emax (keV) duced by application of Eq. (24) to the data of Fig. 5 (a),
with Ed = 60 eV, are shown in Fig. 7 versus atomic number
FIG. 5. Experimental mean values of the yield maximum and energy maxi- Z. An average value for B 0[0.5 is maintained over the entire
mum: (a) Data compilation for metals, from Seiler,' with atomic numbers Z range. The apparent scatter of B values disguises some real
indicated. (b) Data compilation for insulators, from Grais and Dastaw-
trends. The group IA elements, for example, form a lower
ros,'O numbered in order of increasing energy gaps (1::g ) as follows: I-PbS,
2-Sb2 Te" 3-GeS, 4-PbO, 5-TeO" 6-Sb1 0" 7-NaI, 8-KI, 9-CsI, lO-CsBr,
bound to the plot with an average B value of ~O.3. This is at
II-CsCl, 12-NaBr, 13-KBf, 14-RbCI, 15-LiBr, 16-KCI, 17-NaCl, 18-LiCl, first surprising since these elements have very low work
19-NaF, 20-KF, and 21-LiF. The dashed curves ( a: En"" from the standard functions if; and would, by analogy to the X effect in insula-
model) and solid curves (0: E;:;~ from the present model) approximately tors, be expected to have high yields. This effect was recog-
bisect the data points (the insulators with electron affinity t> 2 eV ex- nized, however, long ago and an elegant explanation was
cluded). Assuming a 50% surface escape probability (B'~ 0.5). the sec-
ondary creation energies E" indicated by these fits are -90eV [in (a) J and
presented by Baroody.6 Briefly, Baroody obtained the num-
-20eV (in (b)] for the standard model, and -60eV [in (al] and-5eV
[in (b) J fOI the present model. The high Ed value in metals suggests signifi-
cant energy loss to conduction band electrons.

value in metals suggests that the development of the collision 13

cascade is limited by energy loss to the conduction band

electrons. (This point is further discussed in Sec. V.) Ac- ill
cording to Eg. (23), the twelvefold reduction in Ed leads to <l)

more than a factor of two increase in Emax which is quite

I 7

consistent with the experimental data in the figure [note the

I 0.5 eV / x:
factor of 2.5 energy scale change between Figs. 5(a) and
5 (b) J. The standard model requires a four-fold reduction in
l /
Ed' if B is assumed constant [Eq. ( 10) ], but does not predict
any dependence of Emax on Ed [Eq. (9)]. The higher Emax I
values in insulators would therefore be attributed solely to
larger escape depths. 21 While large escape depths are ob-
oJ-0 I
4.0 5.0
served experimentally, the present model suggests that electron affinity - x: (eV)
greatly increased secondary creation has an equally impor-
tant effect on the magnitude of Emax . FIG. 6, Surface escape probabilities (with Ed fixed at 5 eV) determined
from the deviations of the data points from the solid line in Fig. 4(b), Eq.
The vertical displacement of any data point from the
(24), plotted as a function of electron affinity X as given by Grais and Bas-
solid curves in Fig. 5 determines the value of B / E;/3 in Eq. tawros. 1tl The solid curves indicate saturation at a value of 0.5 for X < leV,
(24). This value is independent of the assumed relations for and a l/y' dependence thereafter.

2387 J. Appl. Phys .. Vol. 68, No.5, 1 September 1990 S. A. Schwarz 2387

Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see
1 5 experiment

I 1.0
a mooel

J' U~-, . 1>------.
AI0 Ga
~ 0.5
--o-~ 1
I ~ :a--- --- cc~··~"···A
Cl, (t 0 00 0 0' C -------- C

il ....Oo~ c:. ...... ······· .. ·.. I

... 0 " I)

-----Rb~ -- °0
·o., .. o 0°

A9-- - .. II-B Ay
III ~ I-A Cs

oL o
00 100

FIG. 7. Surface escape probabilities (with E J fixed at 60 eV) fort he data of
Fig. S(a), from Eq. (24), plotted as a function of atomic number Z. Trends
for the group I-A, II-B, (with valencies ofl) and III-A (with valencieso(3)
elements are indicated.

1.5 If'

. .
'\d' d'b
Q •
•• 0 e'
. a.
ber of conduction electrons exceeding the surface binding l.!
E 1.0
o:fr. r1fJ
I' 0
~ ~

energy by shifting the Fermi sphere in momentum space and 'b w..
Q 0'
calculating the volume of the sphere lying above the thresh- Q

old momentum plane (a geometric construction not unlike 0.5

the present model). An appropriate surface binding energy

= 0.45
is EF + ¢; (Refs. 23 and 24) where EF is the Fermi energy.
B '

Inserting this energy into Baroody's analysis, the following

0 20 40 60
SO 100
expression is obtained for the number of secondaries genera- Z
ted per unit distance traveled by the primary:
FIG. 8. (a) Eq. (23) of the present model for En"" (squares) is compared to
N(Ep + cp) = 9.3 X 106(keV ll2 em - 1 )(E}.!2IEp cp),
experimental data from fig. 5(a) (hullets) as a function of atomic number
(27) Z, in the manner of Dno and Kanaya. 9 (b) Eq. (24) of the present model
for (j"h" (squares) compared to experiment. Ed is fixed at 60 eV and B is
With typical values inserted, this expression, multiplied by
fixed at 0.45.
an escape depth A. of ~ 10 A, predicts a yield t5 of ~ 1. This
equation also indicates that lower energy secondaries in the
surface region may be even more effective in exciting con-
duction band electrons. In the present model, Ep in Bar-
oody's formula would be replaced by a mean cascade energy. probability or secondary production are ignored. Neverthe-
Noting that E i{2 is directly proportional to the conduction less, the rise of the maxima with atomic number Z is well
electron density Nv, where v i.s the valency, Eq. (27) predicts accounted for. The correlation with ionization potential I is
that the contribution of the conduction band electrons to the weaker but still evident. (Ono and Kanaya 9 obtain a superi-
yield is proportional to vi cp. This relation is appealing be- or fit to Om ax data with a similar formula, derived from a
cause an inverse dependence on work function d> is main- diffusion model in which the relatively weak Z dependence
tained, which can, for example, explain trends ~ith cesia- of omax results from electron reflection effects.) Values of B
tion. With regard to Fig. 7, the illustrated trends are now could be derived from Fig. 8(b) to force an exact fit, how-
seen to be reasonable. The group I-A and U-B elements have ever, these values would depend on the assumed material
a valency of 1 and consequently low B values. The group IlI- dependences for R and A. while the values derived from the
A elements, with a valency of 3, form an upper bound in the experimental 0lllax / Emax ratios in Fig. 7 do not. Values of Ed
figure with B values of ~O.6. A more detailed analysis of could similarly be chosen to force a fit to the Emax data in
these B values is unwarranted, in consideration of the large Fig. 8(a), however, these values would also be affected by
experimental error and the crude assumptions employed. the assumed material dependencies, the large experimental
The assumption that Ed is constant is further discussed in uncertainties, and the weak dependence of Emax on Ed'
Sec. V.
Finally, it remains to show that the approximations for
the range R and escape depth A. lead to reasonable predic-
tions for omax and Emax . The predictions of Eg. (23) for Emux
and Eg. (24) for omax are shown in Figs. 8(a) and 8(b) It is appropriate to consider whether the present model
respectively, and compared to the experimental data from can be applied to ion-induced SE emission. In most cases of
Fig. 5(a). Constant values of Ed = 60 eV and B = 0.45 are interest, the ratio RIA. is too large ( r ~ 1 ) and Eq. (21 ) of the
employed, so that the observed yield variation is due only to present model is therefore inapplicable. Figure 9 shows a fit
a geometrical effect, while variations ill the surface escape of the standard model [Eq. (16)] to experimental data 2 4--28

2388 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 68. No.5, i September 1990 S. A. Schwarz 2388

Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see
3 R and the number of secondaries lld are not valid at low
I p'" _Au
J --- 6hB~: I primary energies. An improved estimate for nd is
= EplEd _. 1 (30)
" \ •. "". ~ ... ," i.

I <'
which more closely resembles the expression employed by
2l .: I Sigmund and Tougaard l7 and is equivalent to employing a
J threshold energy correction of Ed. A similar threshold cor-
Q '

.., rection is used by Vaughn 14 and in the semi-empirical sput-

tering mode1. 2 The stopping power decreases rapidly in the
low-energy region, This effect is reasonably modeled by fix-
: \ I ing the range R at a value of 2..1. when Eq. (6) would predict a
value smaller than this (thereby positioning the center of the
ellipsoid at depth A). These two corrections yield a much
better fit to low energy data for both SE emission and sput-
100 10' tOz lrf! 10' 10" tering.
Ep (keV) It is important to recognize that the collision cascade
does not have the shape of an ellipsoid. As the lateral motion
FIG. 9. Experimental data for the proton induced Sf: yield in Au as a func- of secondaries is irrelevant, one might imagine the ellipsoid
tion of proton energy, from several sources,24-17 is compared to the stopping
as resulting from a chance event in which the branches of the
power curve from Andersen and Ziegler.'8 A(Au), from Eq. (7), is 13.3 A.
A fit of the standard model [Eq. (16) 1 is obtained when B = 0.45 and collision cascade wrap themselves around the path of the
Ed = 60 eV as in Fig. 8. Equatioll (21) of the present model is inapplicable primary electron. At any depth within the cascade, the mean
(r~ 1). vertical distance between collisions travelled by a secondary
is, to a good approximation, the escape depth A. If the cas-
cade is uniform, the volume representing one secondary elec-
tron is A 3. The key requirement for the model is that it prop-
for proton bombardment of Au (after Schou 24 and Hassel- erly represent the near-surface depth distribution of created
kamp27 ). The illustrated fit employs the stopping power
secondaries. At high energies, the use of the unit volume A 3
curve from Andersen and Ziegler 28 and an escape depth A,
reproduces the result of the standard model [Eq. (16)) and
from Eq. (7), of 13.3 A. The energy dependence of the yield
leads to identical experimental values of B and Ed [Fig.
is clearly dominated by the stopping power variation; there is
(9) ], as were deduced in the low energy limit. The use of the
no relevant geometrical effect here. [A misleading fit of Eq.
unit volume A ) is therefore justified a posteriori. The vari-
(21 b) to the data of Fig. 9 is obtained if a very low Ed value is
ation with depth of the number of created secondaries as
assumed.] It is significant to note that the values of B and Ed
obtained in the present model is, if anything, insufficiently
(0.45 and 60 eV, respectively) yielding the illustrated fit of
the standard model in Fig. 9 are consistent with the values
The assumption that Ed is 60 eV in all metals is, of
derived from the present model, as in Fig. 8.
course, quite crude. A dependence of Ed on the free-electron
The main equation of the present model, Eg. 21 (b), is
density Nv is suggested by the low energy stopping power
increasingly inaccurate as the primary electron energy in-
formula of Tung et al.: 29
creases beyond ~ 10 Emax. There may be applications where
it is desirable to have a single equation describing a broader
range of energy, approaching the cylindrical limit, Eq. (16)
at high energies. In this regard, it is worthwhile to note that
Eq. (16) may be rewritten as

0- - B - )2!3 - .
p (E 1 (28)
For an energy Ep - EF of ~ 10 eV, this equation indicates a
6 Ed r stopping power of -1 eV I A. The energy loss may therefore
be quite significant over one mean free path. The SE energy
The parameter r = R 12r may be written as distribution resides predominantly in the energy region be-
low 20 e V. In this region, the stopping power in insulators is

l/3 relatively small, as indicated in calculations of Ashley, et
___ El/3E2/3
6 d P af.3o The much larger value of Ed in metals is therefore quite
Y= (29) reasonable. Equation (31) also suggests that Ed should de-
crease if the valency v increases, which further reinforces the
trend with valency observed in Fig. 7. A proper calculation
of Ed would need to account for energy loss to plasmons and
which emphasizes the necessity of knowing the energy-de- inner shell ionization. Plasmon effects have been shown by
pendent stopping power in the high energy limit. The factor Ono and Kanaya 21 to affect the shape of the universal energy
1.2 in Eq. (lIb) is actually ~(1T/6)1!3. A weighted sum of dependence curve in insulators. These important details are
Eqs. (21 b) and (28) may therefore easily be constructed. outside the scope of the present model.
As noted in Sec. IV A, the approximations for the range For ion-induced SE emission and sputtering, the yield

2389 J. AppL Phys., Vol. 68, No.5, 1 September 1990 S. A. Schwarz 2389

Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see
maximum is observed to occur near the energy correspond- the present approach is the ability of the resulting simple
ing to the maximum in the stopping power. For electron- equation to simultaneously describe energy, mass, and angle
induced SE emission, the total stopping power generally effects with good accuracy.
peaks at energies wen below the observed Emax values, al-
though the energy loss to inner shell excitations does peak in
the vicinity of E m • x • 30 The energy dependence of the stop- VI. SUMMARY
ping power, to the extent that it influences the parameter R, A semi-empirical model was described which estimates
plays an important role in the present model. At high pri- the SE yield as the fraction of displaced particles generated
mary energies, as discussed, the stopping power proportion- in an ellipsoidal disturbed volume within the escape depth of
ality is dominant. At lower energies, however, a strict pro- the surface. The most commonly employed ("standard")
portionality to stopping power would not lead to an energy semi-empirical model, in its simplest form, focuses on the
maximum Emux which varies with incident angle, nor would interaction of the primary electron with the near-surface re-
it predict an energy dependence for the relative increase in gion. Both models lead to simple formulas which predict the
yield 8(e)/8(0). dependence of the yield on primary energy, incident angle,
Reflection or backscattering of primary ions has not and material parameters. A detailed comparison of these for-
been specifically accounted for in the present model. In the mulas to experimental data in the literature led to the follow-
diffusion model,9 backscattering results in the relatively ing results: 0) The present model provides a superior fit to
weak Z dependence of Dmax as observed in Fig. 8. In the the universal energy dependence curve over a wide energy
transport modeV 4 backscattering reduces the cosine expo- range; (ii) The present model predicts that the maximum
nent '1 in Eq. (26). It is clear that backscattering should be energy Emax is more severely affected by a change in incident
explicitly accounted for in a detailed theory. The effect of angle than the corresponding maximum yield Dmax , in ac-
backscattering is, to some extent, implicit in the present cord with experiment; (iii) The present model predicts that
model. In the near spherical low energy limit, backscattering the yield ratio O(tJ)/D(O) can significantly exceed
is relatively unimportant since a large fraction of the primary (cos tJ) -- 1, in accord with experiment; (iv) The present
energy is deposited near the surface. At higher energies, the model provides an explanation for the (cos f) - 'I depen-
reflection probability affects the probability of energy loss in dence of the yield ratio, where 7] is observed to vary from 1.3
the near-surface region and can be approximated by a for low Z elements to 0.8 for high Z elements. It also pro-
smooth etfece l on the Z dependence of the range approxi- vides a reasonable estimate of 7]; (v) The present model pro-
mation. Since the range approximation Eq. (6) already con- vides a superior description for the material dependence of
tains a strong Z dependence, which leads to a reasonable fit, the experimental ratio omaJEmax; (vi) Experimental
the omission of the reflection coefficient is not considered to omax 1Emux ratios determine the approximate value of the
be a major source of error. Indeed, the Z dependence of the secondary creation energy Ed' Ed is ~60 eV in metals and
reflection coefficient and the primary range have a common - 5 eV in insulators, suggesting that a large fraction of the
origin. In addition, backscattering may playa role in energy primary energy Ep is dissipated by the conduction-band
dissipation measurements of the primary range, such as electrons; (vii) The order of magnitude reduction of Ed in
those which produced the approximation for the range given insulators results in more than a factor of 2 increase in Emax
in Eq. (6). Ono and Kanaya9 have demonstrated the effect in the present model, as observed experimentally. This sug-
of variations in the backscattering coefficient or the range gests that an increased production of bulk secondaries, as
exponent n on the shape of the universal curve. In the present well as an increase in the escape depth, is responsible for high
model, the experimental results could be mimicked by using insulator yields; (viii) The ratio B 1 E ~13, where B is the sur-
slightly increased n values in high Z materials. face escape probability, may be deduced from experimental
There are several important theoretical approaches to data without knowledge of the escape depth 11. orthe range R;
the problem of SE emission such as the diffusion models, 9 (ix) The deduced surface escape probabilities B in insulators
the transport models,24 and Monte Carlo simulations, 16 are inversely dependent on electron affinity..t, and saturate
which account, either implicitly or explicitly, for the nonlin- for low values of X; (x) The deduced B values in metals
ear depth distribution of secondaries. These theories address suggest a trend with metal valency, in accord with the model
several issues, such as SE energy distributions, lateral distri- of Baroody;6 (xi) Material trends are reasonably repro-
butions, and transmission yields, which are outside the scope duced in either model with the range R and escape depth 11.
of the present model. The Boltzmann transport theory ofSE approximations employed; (xii) Ion-induced SE emission
emission developed by Schou24 closely parallels the sputter- data are generally outside the region of applicability of the
ing theory of Sigmund. 22 The spatial distribution for energy present model, however, the values of the escape probability
loss to ionization, D(E,x) , typically peaks at ~ R 13 in the B and secondary creation energy Ed deduced from one set of
transport theory, as compared to R /2 for the maximum el- data are in good agreement with the values obtained for elec-
lipsoid width in the present model. The review by Schou24 tron-induced SE emission; (xiii) A method to extend the
provides useful criticisms of assumptions in the semi-empiri- model to higher (E~ > lOEmax) and lower (Ep < O.5Emax)
cal models such as the use of mean values for Ed and },. The energies is described.
present model should not be viewed as a substitute for exist- The above results arise in the present model from the
ing theories, but rather as a useful means by which to visual- nonlinear depth distribution of created secondaries. The
ize important experimental trends. A particular strength of model provides a useful visualization of several experimental

2390 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 68, No.5, 1 September 1990 S. A. Schwarz 2390

Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see
trends which are not well described in the standard model. 12 K. Kanaya and S. Ono, J. Phys. D. 11, 1495 (1978).
The simple equation for the SE yield simultaneously de- "G. F. Dionne, J. Appl. Phys. 46,3347 (1975).
14J. R. M. Vaughn. IEEE Trans. EI. Dev. 36,1963 (1989).
scribes variations with primary energy, incident angle, and "M. Salehi and E. A. Flinn, J. App!. Phys. 52, 994 (1981).
material parameters with sufficient accuracy to be of use in 16 Z. J. Ding and R. Shimizu, Surf. Sci. 197, 539 (l9B8).

process simulations. 17 P. Sigmund and S. Tougaard, in Inelastic Particle-Surface Collifions, edit-

ed by E. Tauglauer and W. Heiland (Springer, Berlin, 1981), pp. 2-37.
IS I. M. Bronshtein and V. A. Dolinin, Sov. Phys. Sol. St. 9, 2133 (1968).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS !"C. Bouchard and 1. D. Carette, Surf. Sci. 100, 241 (1980).
The author is grateful to C. C. Chang, D. M. Hwang, R. 10K. Y. Yang and R. W. Hoffman, Surf. Int. Ana!' 10,121 (1987).
21 K. Kanaya, S. Ono, and F. Ishigaki, J. Pbys. D 11, 2425 (1978).
B. Marcus, and N. G. Stoffel for useful discussions.
22 P. Sigmund, in Sputtering by Particle Bombardment I (Springer, Berlin,
1981) pr. 9-67.
LJ M. S. Chung and T. E. Everhart, J. Appl. Phys. 45, 707 (1974).
1 S. A. Schwarz and e. R. Helms. J. App!. Phys. 50, 5492 (1979). 24 J. Schou, Scann. Micros. 2, 607 (1988).
l s. A. Schwarz, J. Vac. Sci. Tech. A 6,2069 (1988). 25R, A. Baragiola, E. V. Alanso, and A. Oliva Florio, Phys. Rev. B 19,121
3 H. Salow, Z. Tech. Phys. 21 8 (1940). (1979).
4 H. Bruinillg, Physics and Applicarions of Secondary Electron Emission 2<> A. Koyama, T. Shikata, and H. Sakairi, lpn. J. App\. Phys. 21, 65 (198!).

(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954). 27 D. Hasselkamp, Die ioneninduzierte Kinetische Elektronen-emission von
'H. Seiler, J. App!. Pbys. 54, R 1 (1983). Metallen bei Miuier!!n und Grossen Projektil-energien (University of
tE. M. Baroody, Phys. Rev. 71!, 780 (1950). Giesscn-Hll.bititationsschrift, Giessen, 1985).
7 G. F. Dionne, J. App!. Phys. 44, 536 t (1973). '8 H. H. Andersen and J. F. Ziegler, Hydrogen Stopping Powers and Ranges
8 R. G. Lye and A. J. Dekker, Phys. Rev. 107, 977 (1957). in all Elements (Pergamon, New York, 1977) pp. 1-317.
oS. Ono and K. Kanaya, J. Phys. D. 12,619 (1979). '"e. J. Tung, 1. C. Ashley, and R. H. Ritchie, Surf. Sci. 81, 427 (1979).
IC K. L Grais and A. M. Bastawros, J. App!. Phys. 53, 5239 (1982). J(J J. C. Ashley, C. J. Tung, and R H. Ritchie, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 22,
"J. R. Young, J. App!. Phys. 27,1 (1956). 2533 (1975).

2391 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 68, No.5, 1 September 1990 S. A. Schwarz 2391

Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see