1: % ****** Start of file template.aps ****** %
2: %
3: % This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 3.0 distribution.
4: % Version 3.0 of REVTeX, November 10, 1992.
5: %
6: % Copyright (c) 1992 The American Physical Society.
7: %
8: % See the REVTeX 3.0 README file for restrictions and more information.
9: %
10: %
11: % This is a template for producing files for use with REVTEX 3.0.
12: % Copy this file to another name and then work on that file.
13: % That way, you always have this original template file to use.
14: %
15: %\documentstyle[preprint, aps, prbbib]{revtex}
16: \documentstyle[eqsecnum, aps, prbbib]{revtex}
17: \def\7x7{Si(111)$7\!\times\!7$}
18: \def\kake{\!\times\!}
19: \def\an{${\rm \AA}$}
20: \def\mic{${\rm \mu}$}
21: \begin{document}
22: %\draft command makes pacs numbers print
23: \draft
24: % repeat the エauthorエaddress pair as needed
25: %
26: \title{Electron microscopy of the strain on the \7x7 surface induced by the
27: STM tip
28: }
29: \author{
30: %$^1$Y. Naitoh, $^2$K. Takayanagi, $^2$Y. Oshima and $^2$H. Hirayama
31: Y. Naitoh, K. Takayanagi, Y. Oshima and H. Hirayama}
32: \address{
33: %$^1$Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology, Japan Science
34: and Technology Corporation (JST), \\
35: %Honcho 4-1-8, Kawaguchi,Saitama 332-0012, Japan\\
36: %The Institute for Solid State Physics, The University of Tokyo,\\
37: %Kashiwano-ha 5-1-5, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8581, Japan\\
38: %$^2$
39: Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Interdisciplinary Graduate
40: School of Science and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology\\
41: 4259 Nagatsuda-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama 226-8502, Japan}
42: %
43: \date{\today}
44: %
45: \maketitle
46: %
47: \begin{abstract}
48: % insert abstract here
49: The \7x7 surface was observed by reflection electron microscopy (REM) and
50: scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) simultaneously in an ultra-high vacuum
51: electron microscope. The distance between the STM tip and the Si surface
52: was detected from the REM image, which showed the real and the mirror image
53: of the tip. We approached the tip to the surface or retracted from the
54: surface by a piezo drive to observe the strain induced on the \7x7 surface
55: as a function of the tip-surface distance. This investigation was done with
56: and without the bias voltage between the tip and the substrate. With bias
57: voltage of 1.0\,V on the sample, the tip was approached to 1.6\,nm above
58: the sample surface for the tunneling current of 0.8\,nA, no detectable
59: order of strain ($\sim{}10^{-4}$) was induced on the sample surface. When
60: the bias decreased within the range of $-0.3$\,V\,$\sim$\,$+0.5$\,V, the
61: surface was compressed over the Si surface area of 100\,nm.
62: Without the bias voltage, tensile and compressive strain was detected as
63: the tip-surface distance changed from attractive to the repulsive
64: interaction regime. The strain field extended over 50\,nm\,$\sim$\,140\,nm,
65: and the force became neutral at the tip-substrate distance of 0.45\,nm.
66:
67: \end{abstract}
68:
69: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
70: %\pacs{PACS numbers: 61.16.Bg, 61.16.Ch, 73.40.Gk}
71:
72: % body of paper here
73: \narrowtext
74:
75: \section{Introduction}
76:
77: Scanning tunneling microscope (STM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) has
78: been used not only as a mean of microscopy, but also as a tool for
79: nanofabrication, nanoprobing, or manipulation of atoms and molecules on
80: surfaces.\cite{eigler,avouris,aono,bartel,dujardin} The techniques attract
81: much interest in the fields of nano-devices and molecular electronics. In
82: these techniques modification by tips \cite{tmmeyer,avouris2} or the
83: migration of surface atoms caused by high electric field
84: \cite{whitman,nakayama} are utilized. Dynamical processes occurring at the
85: gap between the tip and the substrate surface is important to be understood.
86:
87: A combination of a STM with an electron microscope have been devised in
88: some research groups to see the tip and the substrate surface {\it
89: "in-situ"} simultaneously.\cite{gerber,spence,iwatsuki,wada} Those pioneer
90: works have successfully revealed the tip-substrate gap \cite{spence} and
91: the tip-surface distance.\cite{wada} More recently a plastic change of the
92: tip apex was observed during STM operation.\cite{naitoh1} Furthermore, STM
93: tip was used to makea gold nanowire between the tip and the
94: substrate.\cite{ohnishi1}
95:
96: A significant elastic deformation of the tip and the surface is noticed
97: under STM operation \cite{chen} or AFM operation.\cite{yamamoto,sugawara}
98: Theoretical study on the jump-to-contact demonstrated that attractive
99: interaction between the tip and the substrate causes straining of the tip
100: and substrate, which sometimes provoke the atom transfer.\cite{guo,grey}
101: Although such interaction at atomic level was investigated from force
102: measurement by AFM,\cite{perez,cross} contact size and the tip-surface
103: distance, have no ways to be detected.
104:
105: We devised a STM holder attachable to our ultra-high vacuum (UHV) electron
106: microscopy,\cite{naitoh1} to observe the tip-substrate contact by
107: reflection electron microscopy (REM).\cite{yagi,osakabe} Although the
108: deformation of the tip and the surface was small, REM images were sensitive
109: enough for detecting strains of the order of $10^{-4}$.
110:
111: Here, we report REM observation of the \7x7 surface strained by a tungsten
112: tip, as the tip approaches to the surface. The strain of the order of
113: $10^{-4}$ was first observed to have extended over a circular area of about
114: 100\,nm.
115:
116: \section{Experimental}
117:
118: \subsection{Design of REM holder}
119:
120: The experiments were performed in the UHV electron microscope (JEM-2000FXV)
121: \cite{FXV} whose pressure is better than $5\times10^{-7}$\,Pa. The REM-STM
122: specimen holder (Fig.\ref{holder}) was devised to fit into the narrow gap
123: (3.5\,mm) of the objective pole piece. The Si(111) crystal
124: (0.02\,$\Omega$cm, n-type) was flash cleaned at 1200\,$^{\circ}$C by
125: passing the DC current directly through the Si crystal. Tungsten STM tip
126: was sharpened by chemical etching, and preheated for cleaning in an UHV
127: chamber before REM-STM experiment. The STM tip was approached to the
128: substrate by a mechanical drive (2\,mm) and a stack piezo (6\,\mic{}m), and
129: STM image is obtainable by a tube piezo scanner (1\,\mic{}m). The tip
130: motion was observed directly by transmission electron microscopy (TEM).
131:
132: \subsection{STM tip}
133:
134: Apices of tungsten tips were observed by high-resolution TEM and electron
135: diffraction pattern. They always had the (110) plane vertical to the tip
136: axis direction and had a curvature of 2\,-\,6\,nm.\cite{naitoh2} Because of
137: the preheating before putting the tip into the UHV electron microscope, we
138: have not seen heavy contaminations covering over the tip apices. After
139: several STM scans on the \7x7 surface, the apices were found often to have
140: been scraped. The scanning was usually done at sample bias of $V_{s}<
141: 2$\,V, and the tunneling current of 0.3\,nA\,$<I_{t}<$\,2.0\,nA. The
142: scraped tips were terminated with the (110) plane, which was as wide as
143: 10\,-\,300\,nm. Such apices of STM tips were used in the following
144: experiments. We are allowed observing STM images of the \7x7 surface at
145: atomic resolution, when the truncated tip had an adatom cluster on its
146: top.\cite{naitoh2}
147:
148: \subsection{REM imaging of the tip apex}
149:
150: Ray diagram of the REM is illustrated in Fig.\ref{REMgeo}. The Si(111)
151: substrate is placed to the REM-STM holder, whose surface is inclined by an
152: angle $\theta_{\rm 0}$ from the objective lens axis. Then the incident
153: electron beam is reflected specularly to the surface, propagating along the
154: objective lens axis to give the REM image on a fluorescent screen. The
155: image is projection of the sample surface, being foreshortened by a factor
156: of $\sin\theta_{\rm 0}$ in the direction of the propagating
157: beam.\cite{yagi} For the specular beam of the 444 Bragg reflection of the
158: Si, the image is foreshortened by a factor of 1/73
159: ($\theta_{444}=1.36\times{}10^{-2}$\,rad) at the accelerating voltage of
160: 200\,kV.
161:
162: When the tip is approached to the surface, the real and its mirror image of
163: the tip apex appear on the REM image, as shown in Fig.\ref{REMimage}(a).
164: The distance between these apices is $(1+\cos2\theta_{\rm 0})d_{REM}$,
165: where $d_{REM}$ is the gap between the tip and the reflection plane of the
166: Si(111) surface. Although no RHEED calculation had predicted the position
167: of the reflection plane, which should locate between the adatom and the
168: stacking-fault layer of the \7x7 surface.\cite{takayanagi}
169:
170: \subsection{Strain contrast in REM image}
171:
172: Provided that the surface has no strain, the specular beam changes its
173: intensity, $I_0$, for the incident beam angle, $\theta_0$, as illustrated
174: in Fig.\ref{straincont}(a).
175: The rocking curve of the specular beam, a relation of intensity and
176: incident angle , has sharp peaks at the Bragg reflection conditions
177: ($\theta_0{}=\theta_B$).
178: The Bragg width, $\Delta\theta_B$, which was the maximum half width of the
179: specular reflected beam intensity peak, of the 444 Bragg reflection of the
180: Si(111) crystal was calculated to be $7.2\times{}10^{-4}$\,rad on the
181: dynamical Bethe theory \cite{yagi2} (100\,kV accelerating voltage was
182: assumed in the calculation).
183: The Bragg width at 200\,kV accelerating voltage is of the same order as
184: 10$^{-4}$\,rad. When the incident beam angle changes by an amount of the
185: Bragg width from the angle of Bragg condition, the REM image changes from
186: bright to dark.
187: Based on this criterion, we understand strain contrast in the REM
188: image.\cite{yagi}
189: When a compressive force is exerted on the surface, surface lattice strains
190: as shown in Fig.\ref{straincont}(b).
191: Provided that the incident beam satisfies the Bragg condition for the
192: un-strained surface, the incident beam does not satisfy the Bragg condition
193: for the strained area. Thus, the strained area gives dark contrast, except
194: the central area (see Fig.
195: \ref{straincont}(b)). When the incident angle is smaller (larger) than the
196: Bragg angle by the Bragg width for the un-strained area, the dark contrast
197: appears only on one side of the strained area.
198:
199: \section{Results and Discussion}
200:
201: \subsection{Tip-approach with bias voltage}
202:
203: The real and mirror images of an STM tip appear in the REM image, as
204: reproduced in Fig.\ref{REMimage}(a).
205: The appearance of the lattice fringes of the $7\!\times\!7$ surface along
206: the vertical direction, the [1$\bar{1}$0] direction, proves cleanliness of
207: the surface.
208: The tip is kept at a constant height from the surface, while the STM tip is
209: biased by 1.0\,V and tunneling current of 0.8\,nA.
210: The real and the mirror image gave the tip-surface distance of $d_{\rm
211: REM}=1.6\pm{}0.5$\,nm. By further reduction of the voltage
212: ($-0.3$\,V\,$<V_{s}<$\,0.5\,V, and $I_{t}=0.8$\,nA), the tip approached so
213: close to the surface that the separation between the real and mirror tip
214: images could not be resolved.
215: In these bias voltages, a dark horizontal line appeared between the two tip
216: images, as shown in Fig.\ref{REMimage}(b).
217: The dark line extended over an area of 120\,nm. This dark line image is due
218: to compressive strain of the \7x7 surface induced by the tip. As explained
219: before, contrast analysis confirmed the compressive strain.
220:
221: Figure \ref{REMtip} shows REM image of a compressive strain, where
222: $V_{s}=+0.5$\,V and $I_{t}=0.8$\,nA.
223: The grazing angle of the incident electron beam increases from (a) to (c),
224: passes the Bragg condition in (b).
225: The strain contrast underneath the tip is dark-bright in (a), dark-dark in
226: (b) and bright-dark in (c).
227: This change indicates the compressive strain.
228: The strain of the order of $10^{-4}$ extends over 120\,nm, as seen from the
229: length of the dark line in Fig.\ref{REMtip}.
230:
231: The tip-surface distance, $d_{\rm REM}$, was measured as a function of the
232: bias voltage ($I_{t}$ is kept constant), and plotted in Fig.\ref{REMtip}.
233: The observed $d_{\rm REM}$ vs. bias relationship in Fig.\ref{REMtip} do not
234: accord with the previous one that was deduced from the conductance
235: oscillation due to the tunneling barrier resonance.\cite{feenstra} $d_{\rm
236: REM}$ decreases steeply to zero as the positive bias decreases to $+0.5$\,V
237: , or as the negative bias increases to $-0.3$\,V. The bias voltages that
238: $d_{\rm REM}$ goes to zero are close to the valence and the conduction band
239: edge. When the bias is close to the band edge as in the case of
240: Fig.\ref{dvplot}, the tip is almost touching to the sample surface. The tip
241: had no mechanical contact, because of repulsive interaction. No trace ofmechanical contact was seen on the \7x7 surface after the retraction of the
242: tip from the surface, indeed.
243:
244: \subsection{Strain of the Si(111) induced by the tip without bias voltage}
245:
246: The \7x7 surface was also found to be strained by the tip, when no bias
247: voltage was applied. The tip was approached to and retracted from the
248: surface by the tube piezo scanner. REM images for the tip motion was
249: recorded on a videotape, and analyzed in detail. Figure \ref{app-wdraw} is
250: a series of REM images, each of which show the real (upper side) and mirror
251: (lower side) image of the tip apex. The $7\!\times\!7$ lattice fringes of
252: the Si(111) surface were appearing always. As the tip approaches from (a)
253: to (d), a dark horizontal line comes out in (b), disappears in (c), and
254: reappears in (d). On the way back from (d) to (g), the line contrast
255: changes reversibly.
256: The tip-substrate gap distance was measured in reference to the $d_{\rm
257: REM}$ in Fig.\ref{app-wdraw}(a). The $d_{\rm REM}$ in
258: Fig.\ref{app-wdraw}(a) was measured directly from the REM to be 1.25\,nm.
259: Further approach of the tip did not allow accurate measurement of $d_{\rm
260: REM}$ value, so that the gap distance was estimated by $d=d_{\rm
261: REM}-\Delta{}d_{\rm piezo}$, where $\Delta{}d_{\rm piezo}$ is the
262: elongation of the tube piezo scanner. The gap distance, then, is 0.9\,nm,
263: 0.4\,nm, 0.15\,nm, 0.45\,nm, and 0.85\,nm for (b)\,-\,(f), respectively. In
264: (g), the gap distance became $d_{\rm REM}=1.7$\,nm, which was measured
265: directly from the REM image. The length of the dark lines in REM images in
266: Fig.\ref{app-wdraw} (and other series of tip approach) were measured as a
267: function of the gap distance, $d$, and plotted in Fig.\ref{d-leng}. The
268: strain for $0.15\,{\rm nm}<d<0.4\,{\rm nm}$ (Fig.\ref{app-wdraw}(d)) is
269: compressive, while that $d>0.45{\rm nm}$ is tensile (Fig.\ref{app-wdraw}(b)
270: and (f)). Neither attractive nor repulsive force works at the gap distance
271: of $0.45\,{\rm nm}\pm{}0.03\,{\rm nm}$ (Fig.\ref{app-wdraw}(c) and (e)).
272: Looking the length of the dark lines (the area having strained more than
273: $10^{-4}$\,rad) in Fig.\ref{d-leng}, the range of the strain field is found
274: to be extremely wide. The maximum strain field for the attractive
275: interaction extends over the area of 50\,nm at the gap distance of 0.8\,nm.
276: For repulsive interaction regime, the range extended even more than 100\,nm
277: for $d<0.2$\,nm. We calculated the range of the compressive strain field,
278: following the classical elastic approach \cite{timo} by assuming various
279: radiuses of a flat topped tip and a compressive force . However, no
280: reasonable radius or force could explain the magnitude of the strain field
281: seen in the REM image.\cite{naitohdr}
282:
283: In the experiments, we did not observe for our tip to jump-to-contact with
284: the Si surface, since our tip is rigid enough. On the other hand, we
285: observed jump-to-detach motion of our tip while withdrawal of the tip. On
286: the withdrawal, the tensile strain contrast reaches to its maximum in
287: Fig.\ref{app-wdraw}(f) at $d=0.85$\,nm. Its contrast is kept constant by
288: further withdrawal (0.05\,nm) of the tip, but it disappears suddenly
289: (within one frame of the VTR recording: time after 30\,ms). In this
290: jump-to-detach motion, the attractive force changed from its maximum to
291: zero, and the gap distance had changed from $d=0.9$\,nm to $d_{\rm
292: REM}=1.7$\,nm (Fig.\ref{app-wdraw}(g)).
293: The reason is not clear. The tip apex had no mechanical contact with the
294: substrate during the approach and withdrawal process, if the tip-surface
295: distance was larger than 0.15\,nm.
296: When we push the tip to a distance closer than 0.1\,nm, we began to see
297: scratch mark on the Si surface after the tip withdrawal.
298: The tip also strained greatly.
299: From these observations, mechanical contact between the tip and the surface
300: begins at the gap distances larger than 0.15\,nm.
301:
302: The present REM-STM observation of the \7x7 surface by a tungsten tip,
303: thus, has revealed the strain range of 50\,nm at gap distance of 0.8\,nm.
304: Such strain field might cause potential gradient of the surface to excite
305: migration of adsorbed atoms or of the surface atoms.\cite{whitman,nakayama}
306: The absolute value of the gap distances is supposed to be overestimated,
307: since the gap distances (Fig.\ref{REMtip}) in STM condition are larger than
308: the previous report.\cite{feenstra} Any way, the strain field of the
309: substrate was detected first in this experiment. The strain changed tensile
310: to compressive in relation to the attractive and repulsive force from the
311: tip, respectively.
312:
313: Atomic process such as jump-to-contact has not seen in the REM-STM
314: experiment. This might be poor resolution of the REM image, and should be
315: done by TEM-STM in future. TEM-STM, however, is only sensitive to the
316: strain of the order of $10^{-3}$. Detection of the surface strain becomes
317: possible by REM imaging of the surface.
318:
319: \section{Conclusion}
320:
321: By a combination of STM with UHV electron microscope, the \7x7 surface was
322: observed simultaneously in REM and STM. The tip apex could be imaged in REM
323: images of the specularly reflected electron beam. From the real and the
324: mirror images of the tip, we knew the tip-surface distance directly. The
325: tip was approached to and retracted from the sample surface with or without
326: bias voltage being applied between the tip and the sample surface. The
327: tensile strain was induced on the Si surface when the gap distance is
328: $0.45\,{\rm nm}<d<0.85\,{\rm nm}$. The surface strain turns into
329: compressive for $\,0.15\,{\rm nm}<d<0.45\,{\rm nm}$. Mechanical contact of
330: the tip to the sample surface occur for $d<0.10$\,nm. The range of the
331: strain field, the area strained more than $10^{-4}$, is 50\,nm in the
332: attractive force regime, while it exceeds 100\,nm in the repulsive
333: interaction regime.
334:
335: % now the references. delete or change fake bibitem. delete next three
336: % lines and directly read in your .bbl file if you use bibtex.
337: \begin{references}
338: %
339: \bibitem{eigler}D.M. Eigler, C.P. Lutz and W.E. Rudge, Nature {\bf 352},
340: 600 (1991).
341: %
342: \bibitem{avouris}I.-W. Lyo and Ph. Avouris, Science {\bf 253}, 173 (1991).
343: %
344: \bibitem{aono}M. Aono, A. Kobayashi and F. Gray, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. {\bf
345: 32}, 1470 (1993).
346: %
347: \bibitem{bartel}L. Bartels, G. Meyer and K.-H. Rieder, Phys. Rev. Lett.
348: {\bf 79}, 697 (1997).
349: %
350: \bibitem{dujardin}G. Dujardin, A. Mayne, O. Robert, F. Rose, C. Joachim and
351: h. Tang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 3085 (1998).
352: %
353: \bibitem{tmmeyer}T. M. mayer, J. E. Houston, G. E. Franklin, A. A. Erchak
354: and T. A. Michalske, J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 85}, 8170 (1999).
355: %
356: \bibitem{avouris2}Ph. Avouris, I.-W. Lyo and Y. Hasegawa, J. Vac. Sci.
357: Technol. {\bf A11}, 1725 (1993).
358: %
359: %\bibitem{lang}Y. Yazdani, D.M. Eigler and N.D. Lang, Science {\bf 272},
360: 1921 (1994).
361: %
362: \bibitem{whitman}L.J. Whitman, J.A. Stroscio, R.A. Dragoset and R.J.
363: Celotta, Surf. Sci. {\bf 251}, 1206 (1984).
364: %
365: \bibitem{nakayama}T. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 11}, 999 (1996).
366: %
367: \bibitem{gerber}Ch. Gerber, G. Binig, H. Fuchs, O. Marti and H. Rohrer,
368: Rev. Sci. Instrum. {\bf 57} 221 (1986).
369: %
370: \bibitem{spence}M. Kuwabara, W. Lo and J.C.H. Spence, J. Vac. Sci. Technol.
371: {\bf A7}, 2745 (1989).
372: %
373: \bibitem{iwatsuki}M. Iwatsuki, K. Murooka, S. Kitamura, K. Takayanagi and
374: Y. Harada, J. Electron Microsc. {\bf 40}, 48 (1991).
375: %
376: \bibitem{wada}M. Lutwyche and Y. Wada, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 66}, 2807 (1994).
377: %
378: \bibitem{naitoh1}Y. Naitoh, K. Takayanagi and M. Tomitori, Surf. Sci. {\bf
379: 357-358}, 208 (1996).
380: %
381: \bibitem{ohnishi1}H. Ohnishi, K. Takayanagi and Y. Kondo, Nature {\bf 395}
382: 780 (1998).
383: %
384: \bibitem{chen}C.J. Chen and J. Hamers, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. {\bf B9}, 503
385: (1991).
386: %
387: \bibitem{yamamoto}S.P. Jarvis, H. Yamada, S.-I. Yamamoto, H. Tokumoto and
388: J.B. Pethica, Nature (London) {\bf 384}, 247 (1996).
389: %
390: \bibitem{sugawara}T. Uchihashi, Y. Sugawara, T. Tsukamoto, M. Ohta, S.
391: Morita and M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. {\bf B56}, 9834 (1997).
392: %
393: \bibitem{guo}C.X. Guo and D.J. Thompson, Ultramicroscopy {\bf 42-44}, 1452
394: (1992).
395: %
396: \bibitem{grey}O. Hansen, J.T. Ravnkilde, U. Quaade, K. Stokubro and F.
397: Grey, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 5572 (1998).
398: %
399: \bibitem{perez}R. P\'{e}rez, I. Stich, M.C. Payne and K. Terekura, Phys.
400: Rev. {\bf B58} 10835 (1998).
401: %
402: \bibitem{cross}G. Cross, A. Schirmeisen, A. Stalder and P. Gr\"{u}tter,
403: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80} 4685 (1998).
404: %
405: %\bibitem{lantz}M.A. Lantz, H.J. Hug, P.J.A. van Schendel, R. Hoffmann, S.
406: Martin, A. Baratoff, A. Abdurixit, H.-J. Guntherodt and Ch. Gerber, Phys.
407: Rev. Lett. {\bf 84} 2642 (2000).
408: %
409: \bibitem{yagi} K. Yagi, Surf. Sci. Rep. {\bf 17}, 305 (1993).
410: %
411: \bibitem{osakabe}N. Osakabe, Y. Tanishiro, K. Yagi and G. Honjo, Surf. Sci.
412: {\bf 97}, 393 (1980).
413: %
414: \bibitem{FXV}Y. Kondo, et al. : Ultramicroscopy {\bf 35}, 111 (1991).
415: %
416: \bibitem{naitoh2}Y. Naitoh, K. Takayanagi, H. Hirayama and Y. Ohshima,
417: Surf. Sci. {\bf 433-435}, 627 (1999).
418: %
419: \bibitem{yagi2}N. Osakabe, Y. Tanishiro, K. Yagi and G. Honjo, Surf. Sci.
420: {\bf 102}, 424 (1981).
421: %
422: \bibitem{takayanagi}K. Takayanagi, Y. Tanishiro, M. Takahashi and S.
423: Takahashi, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. {\bf A3}, 1502 (1985).
424: %
425: \bibitem{feenstra}R.M. Feenstra, Surf. Sci. {\bf 299/300}, 965 (1994).
426: %
427: \bibitem{bethe}J.M. Cowley, {\it Diffraction Physics}, (NorthHolland, 1995)
428: 3rd ed.
429: %
430: \bibitem{timo}S.P. Timoshenko and J.N. Goodier, {\it Theory of Elasticity}
431: (MacGraw-Hill Book Company, New York) 3rd ed.
432: %
433: \bibitem{naitohdr}Y. Naitoh, Dr thesis, 2000, (Tokyo Institute of Technology)
434: %
435: %\bibitem{STM}C.J.Chen, {\it Introduction to Scannning Tunneling
436: %Microscopy}, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993)
437: %
438: %\bibitem{shuman}H.Shuman, Ultramicroscopy {\bf 2}, 361 (1977)
439: %
440: %\bibitem{love}S.P.Timoshenko and J.N.Goodier, {\it Theory of Plates and
441: %Shells} (MacGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1959) 2nd ed.
442: %
443: %\bibitem{keating}P.N.Keating, Phys.Rev. {\bf 145}, 637 (1966)
444: %
445: %\bibitem{javis}S.P.Javis, H.Yamada, S.-I.Yamamoto and H.Tokumoto, Rev.
446: %sci. Instrum. {\bf 67}, 2281 (1996)
447: %
448: %\bibitem{yagi2}N.Osakabe, Y.Tanishiro, K.Yagi, and G.Honjo, Surf. Sci.
449: {\bf 97}, 393 (1980)
450: %
451: %\bibitem{gibson}J.M.Gibson, M.L.McDonald and F.C.Unterwald, Phys. Rev.
452: %Lett. {\bf 55}, 1765 (1985)
453: %
454: %\bibitem{FX}T.Tomita, M.Iwatsuki, Y.Arai, Y.Ishida, K.Ibe and M.Kersker,
455: %Proc. 42nd Annu. EMSA meeting, Detroit, 1984, pp.622-623
456: %
457: \end{references}
458:
459: % figures follow here
460: %
461: % Here is an example of the general form of a figure:
462: % Fill in the caption in the braces of the \caption{} command. Put the label
463: % that you will use with \ref{} command in the braces of the \label{} command.
464: %
465: %fig1
466: \begin{figure}
467: \caption{Design features of the STM holder for our electron microscope.
468: }
469: \label{holder}
470: \end{figure}
471:
472: %fig2
473: \begin{figure}
474: \caption{Schematic illustration of REM imaging. An electron beam with an
475: incident angle, $\theta_0$, is specularly reflected by a substrate surface.
476: The REM image is foreshortened by the factor of $\sin{}\theta_0$.
477: It is just like the projected image from the virtual incidence.
478: When the tip is approached to the surface, a true and the mirror images of
479: the tip are seen on the REM image of the surface.
480: The distance between the two tip apices images is given by
481: $(1+\cos{}2\theta{}_0)d_{REM}$.
482: }
483: \label{REMgeo}
484: \end{figure}
485:
486: %fig3
487: \begin{figure}
488: \caption{(a) Schematic illustration for the beam reflection on the surface
489: and specular reflection intensity, $I$, as a function of incidence angle,
490: $\theta{}_0$. The intensity at the Bragg condition, $\theta_0=\theta_B$,
491: has sharp peak with the Bragg width, $\Delta\theta_B$.
492: (b) Schematic illustration for the changes of incident angle on the
493: compressive strained surface and the specular reflection intensitiy
494: distribution. Two dark lines contrast at $\theta_0=\theta_B$ change to
495: bright-dark (dark-bright) contrast under condition that incident angle,
496: $\theta_0$, is larger (smaller) than the Bragg angle, $\theta_B$.
497: }
498: \label{straincont}
499: \end{figure}
500:
501: %fig4
502: \begin{figure}
503: \caption{(a) shows the REM image of a tungsten tip and a Si(111) surface
504: when the tip is approached to the surface in a constant current mode of STM
505: ($V_s=+1.0$\,V, $I_t=0.8$\,nA and).
506: The gap distance between the tip and the reflection plane in the substrate
507: surface, $d_{REM}$, is estimated to be 1.6\,nm.
508: (b) is the strained surface image of the Si indicated by a horizontal dark
509: line contrast between the two tip images as reducing the sample bias to
510: $-0.3\,{\rm V}<V_s<+0.5$\,V.
511: The dark contrast length implies the strain of the order of 10$^{-4}$
512: exteded over the 120\,nm diameter area.
513: }
514: \label{REMimage}
515: \end{figure}
516:
517: %fig5
518: \begin{figure}
519: \caption{REM images of the strained surface below the tip at $V_s=+0.5$\,V,
520: $I_t=0.8$\,nA taken (a) under out of Bragg condition of
521: $\theta_0<\theta_0$, (b) for Si (444) Bragg condition of
522: $\theta_0=\theta_B$ and (c) under out of Bragg condition of
523: $\theta_0>\theta_B$. Changes of the line contrast between the true and
524: mirror tip images are noted.
525: }
526: \label{REMtip}
527: \end{figure}
528:
529: %fig6
530: \begin{figure}
531: \caption{The $V_s$\,-\,$d$ plot obtained by REM-STM observation. The
532: circles and open triangles refer to different tunneling currents,
533: $I_t=0.35\,{\rm nA}$ and 0.8\,nA, respectively.
534: }
535: \label{dvplot}
536: \end{figure}
537:
538: %fig7
539: \begin{figure}
540: \caption{REM images of the straining on a Si surface induced by a tip
541: without applying sample bias voltage, which were taken at
542: (a) $d_{REM}=1.2$\,nm, (b) $d=0.8$\,nm, (c) $d=0.4$\,nm and (d)
543: $d=0.1$\,nm in a tip approaching process and at (e) $d=0.45$\,nm, (e)
544: $d=0.85$\,nm and (f) $d_{REM}=1.7$\,nm in a tip withdrawing process. }
545: \label{app-wdraw}
546: \end{figure}
547:
548: %fig8
549: \begin{figure}
550: \caption{The contrast length of the strained surface in
551: fig.\ref{app-wdraw}(b)\,-\,(f) plotted for the tip-surface distance, $d$.
552: The length of the compressive (attractive) straining is shown by positive
553: (negative) value. }
554: \label{d-leng}
555: \end{figure}
556:
557:
558: % tables follow here
559: %
560: % Here is an example of the general form of a table:
561: % Fill in the caption in the braces of the エcaption{} command. Put the label
562: % that you will use with エref{} command in the braces of the \label{} command.
563: % Insert the column specifiers (l, r, c, d, etc.) in the empty braces of the
564: % エbegin{tabular}{} command.
565: %
566: % \begin{table}
567: % \caption{}
568: % \label{}
569: % \begin{tabular}{}
570: % \end{tabular}
571: % \end{table}
572:
573: \end{document}
574: %
575: % ****** End of file template.aps ******
576:
577: