1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Disorder effects on electronic bandgap and transport in graphene-nanomesh-based structures
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.4772609
/content/aip/journal/jap/113/1/10.1063/1.4772609
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jap/113/1/10.1063/1.4772609
View: Figures

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Energy gap of GNM lattices as a function of the super-cell lattice constant for different hole shapes. (a) is for zigzag holes while (b) is for armchair holes. The super-cells of considered GNM lattices, where white circles indicate the removed carbon atoms, are presented in the bottom of two sub-figures.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

(a) Conductance in the unit of as a function of Fermi energy for different disorder strengths. The plot is for the lattices of zigzag holes with the hole shape (1) as shown in Fig. 1(a) and Q = 13 corresponding to the metallic GNMs. (b) Energy gap of the GNM lattices as a function of the super-cell lattice constant with disorder effects. The plot is for the lattices of both zigzag and armchair holes with the hole shape (1) as shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) , respectively.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

(a) Schematic of single potential barrier structures studied in this work. A finite GNM section is inserted in the device center. (b) and (c) show the current density at as a function of the barrier height with the barrier length and . In (b), the results are plotted for Q = 15 ( , semiconducting GNM), for different and disorder strengths. (c) is for Q = 14 ( , metallic GNM), and for different disorder strengths. In (b), the case of full pristine graphene structure is shown for comparison.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(a) I-V characteristics of the single barrier structure with a finite perfect GNM section ( ) and for different barrier heights. (b) shows the effects of different and disorder strengths for the case of studied in (a). Other device parameters are and Q = 15.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

(a), (b), (d), and (e) Local density of states and (c) and (f) current spectrum of the device studied in Fig. 4(a) at two different biases: and 0.4 V. The barrier heights are for (a)–(c) and 0.6 eV for (d)–(f). The solid line in (a), (b), (d), and (e) indicates the potential profile.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

(a) Schematic of simulated graphene p–n junctions with finite GNM sections inserted in the two doped contacts. (b) shows the obtained I–V characteristics with the effects of different and disorder strengths. The zigzag holes with Q = 15 are used while and .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/jap/113/1/10.1063/1.4772609
2013-01-02
2014-04-21
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Disorder effects on electronic bandgap and transport in graphene-nanomesh-based structures
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jap/113/1/10.1063/1.4772609
10.1063/1.4772609
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM