Physica B: Condensed Matter 543 (2018) 14–17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physica B: Condensed Matter

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/physb

Modeling the strain impact on refractive index and optical transmission rate T
a b c,d e,∗
Asma Darvishzadeh , Naif Alharbi , Amir Mosavi , Nima E. Gorji
a
Department of Chemistry, Tehran Central Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
b
School of Industrial Engineering, Umm Al-Qura University, Saudi Arabia
c
Institute of Structural Mechanics, Bauhaus University Weimar, Weimar, Germany
d
Institute of Automation, Obuda University, Budapest, Hungary
e
Optoelectronics Research Group, Faculty of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: We propose a new and simple modeling approach for strain impact on the transmission and reflection rate of
Strain semiconductor devices. The model is applied to graphene or carbon nanotubes deposited on substrates. Any
Refractive index change in transmission rate by strain can directly impact on the short-circuit current density of an electronic
Optical transmission device. The nanolayers of graphene and nanotubes are often used as the excellent replacement for the con-
Reflection
ventional metallic contacts. However, these nanolayers are sensitive to in-plain and out-plain strain. It is shown
Graphene
Nanotube
that the transmission rate is significantly reduced by the strain. We have also calculated the change in the
refractive index under in-plain strain and the consequent change in reflection rate. The modeling can be ex-
tended to calculate the change in the refractive index under out-plain strain. Furthermore, one can calculate the
change in short-circuit current density of the full device (i.e. solar cell) under in-plain or out-plain strains. A
practical outcome of our modeling approach is to optimize the thickness or concentration of graphene and
carbon nanotube to en extent which is less sensitive to any thermo-mechanical strain. This leads the reader to
strain tuning techniques which are rarely applied to sensors, solar cells or photodetector devices through fab-
rication and characterization process.

1. Introduction pseudo–magnetic field due to massless Dirac fermion-like band struc-

Graphene and nanotubes were often proposed as the environment
friendly and cost-effective materials for the conventional metallic back
contacts in solar cells [1,2]. Various optoelectronic devices are now
using nanostructures of graphene and nanotubes as the front, back, or
buffer layer in solar cells, light sensors, photodetectors, etc. [3,4]. High
light transparency for a wide range of wavelengths, good thermal
conduction, excellent electrical conduction and simple deposition has
attracted the attention to this materials for optoelectronic applications.
Higher light transparency will increase the transmission rate which will
directly impact on the short circuit current density of the device. We
have already applied this concept on CdTe and CIGS thin film solar cells
[5,6]. Nevertheless, the atomically thin nature of graphene and nano-
tubes makes them vulnerable against strain and stress. Guinea has
proposed that graphene shows unique feature in responding to strain
which is the influence of long range strains on it's electronic properties
[7] Strain is induced on nanolayers during normal operation or through
electrical characterization and heat dissipation process. Levy et al. have
proposed theoretical calculation showing that strain can be used to
engineer graphene electronic states through the creation of a
ture and particular lattice symmetry of graphene [8]. Nevertheless, the
effect of strain on optical properties of these layers has not been widely
investigated via semi-classical modeling approaches though mostly by
finite element simulation analysis [9]. Especially in photovoltaic de-
vices, the dependence of exciton de-bounding on film morphology and
lattice strain has yet to be modeled and further explored. McDaniels
et al., have shown that both offset on bandgap and lattice strain have a
significant impact on charge transfer dynamics [10]. The refractive
index is very useful parameter to design the anti-reflection coating on
the surface of solar cells or photodetectors thus the proposed modeling
provides a handy approach for designing optoelectronic devices with
less vulnerable design but also with robust absorption of shining light.
Tran et al. have proposed a modeling approach to calculate the impact
of refractive index and bandgap of GeSn alloys for the wavelength
range of 1500–2500 nm [11]. Vazinishayan et al. have performed Finite
Element simulation analysis to calculate the mechanical strain effect on
the optical properties of ZnO nanowire (NW) before and after embed-
ding ZnS nanowire into ZnO nanowire [9]. They have shown that in-
creasing the strain caused by external load (i.e. by applying external
electrodes) changes the light reflection, transmission and absorption.

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nimaegorji@tdt.edu.vn (N.E. Gorji).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physb.2018.05.001
Received 4 August 2016; Received in revised form 23 April 2018; Accepted 4 May 2018
Available online 11 May 2018
0921-4526/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Darvishzadeh et al. Physica B: Condensed Matter 543 (2018) 14–17

We have already developed a quantitative approach for the modeling of

optical loss in thin film solar cells by connecting the transmission/re-
flection rate to short-circuit current density [6,12]. The optical trans-
mission rate is obtained only from optical constants such as refractive
index and extinction coefficients which promises a simple approach to
optimize the absorption capability of a device only by calculating the
reflection rate based on optical constants of every layer of a device.

2. Modeling approach

We present a novel modeling approach to investigate the effect of

strain induced in-plain (e∥) and out-plain (e⊥) on light Transmission
(T(λ)) or Reflection (R(λ)) from a nanostructure material deposited on a
substrate. The first effect of strain would be on Refractive Index (n) and
Bandgap Energies (Eg) of the material which is in turn related to optical
transmission/reflection or absorption coefficient (α(λ)) at a range of
wavelengths. Here we ignore the change in bandgap of the materials
under strain in order to purely the strain effect on the optical para-
meters of the device [13]. The effect of in-plain strain on refractive
index of a materials is given by Lorentz-Lorentz equation [11]
(n2 − 1)(n2 + 2)
Δn = e
6n (1)
where in Eq. (1), e∥ is the in-plane strain can be positive or negative for
tensile and compressive strain, respectively. Δn = n − n0, therefore, the
new refractive index after applying the strain is n = Δn + n0. On the
other hand, the refractive index is given by Sellmeier equation [5]
describing the spectral dispersion relationship,
Aλ2 Bλ2
n 02 = 1 + 2
+ 2 +…
λ2 − λ1 λ − λ12 (2)
Here, we satisfactory approximation neglects the other terms of the full
Sellmeier equation which is the summation of infinite terms. According
to Kosyachenko et al. citeK1 A = 0.6962, B = 0.4079, λ1 = 68 nm, and
λ2 = 116 nm.
Having the optical constants of refractive index and extinction
coefficient of a layer we can calculate the reflection rate as considered
in our previous publications [5],
Fig. 1. Refractive index and extinction coefficients of graphene or nanotube
(n1 − n2)2 + (κ1 − κ2)2
Ri = and various conductive substrates used for such devices. The inset shows a
(n1 + n2)2 + (κ1 + κ2)2 (3) typical and simple double layer device made of nanolayer on a conductive
substrate. The nanolayer has been shown in 2D to be seen from cross section
Then we can calculate the transmission rate through T = 1 − R but also
view [6].
taking into consideration the absorption coefficient. One can neglect
the absorption rate in the layer if it is too thin like a single atomic
graphene layer. CIGS materials as the back or front contract replacement for metallic
counterparts.
T (λ ) = (1 − R (λ )) exp(−α (λ ) d ) (4)
Fig. 1 shows the refractive index and extinction coefficient of var-
where α(λ) is the absorption coefficient for a range of wavelengths and ious graphene and CNT layers as well as their substrates such as ITO,
d is the thickness of the layer. We know that α(λ) is related to extinction TCO, ZnO reported in the literature [18,19]. The inset shows the
coefficient via α(λ) = 4πκ (λ) . The refractive index and extinction coef- schematic structure of a double layer device with graphene or CNT on
λ
ficients are available for any material reported in various literature. For top. These data were also used in our previous publications for calcu-
any multi-layer device, we can calculate the reflection rate as given in lating the optical loss in hybrid thin film solar cells [5,6]. The strain can
above modeling approach and then we calculate the transmission rate be applied by applying external electrodes on graphene. Such a struc-
or the impact of strain on transmission and reflection. If the model is ture can be further extended to thin film solar cells where graphene or
applied to solar cell, one can calculate the short-circuit current density nanotube is used as the front or back contact electrode. As shown in
(Jsc) based on T(λ) and from there to calculate the change in both Fig. 1, the refractive index of the nanolayer (here as graphene) for
current density and conversion efficiency (ΔJsc & Δη). λ = 400–650 nm is smaller than other ranges. However, still it is higher
than the refractive index of conductive substrate layers. This makes the
3. Modeling results and discussion graphene layer more vulnerable to strain than the substrate layers ac-
cording to Eq. (1) where a direct relationship is found between the Δn
The presented model is applied on several devices presented in lit- and e∥. The refractive index of CNT materials can be extracted from
erature. For example, we will investigate the strain effect on a device ellipometry measurements in the literature or for example, from the
made of mono or multi layer of graphene on a ZnO substrate [14,15], or transmission rate provided in Ref. [18].
monolayer of graphene deposited on a Fused Silia [16], and single Fig. 2 shows the variation of refractive index impacted by several in-
walled carbon nanotube (CNT) deposited on ITO substrate [17]. All pain strain levels (e∥ = 0, 0.24%, 0.80%, 1.2%). The graphene/ZnO
these devices have applications in thin film solar cells made of CdTe or device was selected for this analysis by inserting the refractive index

15
A. Darvishzadeh et al.
Fig. 2. The change in refractive index of nanostructure/substrate device for
several in-plain strain values compared to case with no strain according to Eq.
(1): n2 = Δn + n0.
values given in Fig. 1. A similar trend is expected for CNT/TCO device.
We have calculated the new refractive index after being impacted by
the in-plain strain. This n2 will be then inserted in Eqs. (3) and (4). The
modeling result indicates that a higher in-plain strain level causes
higher refractive index as calculated according to Eq. (1). The shift in n
values occurs for a wide range of wavelength less significant in visible
range. The change in n is more significant for shorter wavelengths
around 300–400 nm. Therefore, for solar cell application, the strain
impact on short current density would not be significant though not
negligible. However, for sensors or IR photodetectors that would be a
considerable change from strain on the light responsiveness of the de-
vice.
Fig. 3 shows the reflection rate calculated for two different inter-
faces of air/graphene & graphene/ZnO for the cases without in-plain
strain and with strain of 0.24%. We have not shown the other strain
values to avoid making the curves busy. The reflection rate is not
changing much for the smaller wavelengths but have a relatively mild
change for longer wavelengths. The change in R(λ) is even more visible
Fig. 3. The reflection rate from air/graphene & graphene/ZnO interface or the
same structures with CNT/ITO calculated for several in-plain strain percentage
compared to case with no strain following Eq. (3).
16
Physica B: Condensed Matter 543 (2018) 14–17
from graphene/ZnO interface which comes from relatively high dif-
ference between the refractive index of graphene and ZnO layers. We
note that to make the calculations simple as, we have ignored the non-
linear behavior of strain in higher levels. Graphene and nanotube show
non-linear strain (in- or out-plain) in higher deformation levels. We
keep our simulations in a linear and discrete mode to make it rather
possible for further investigations. Clearly the general formulation will
not change since one can replace the e∥ values variable by elastic
constants and insert a variable non-linear parameter for it in Eq. (1).
Having the reflection rate for different strain levels, we can calcu-
late the transmission rate for new n2 values obtained by Eq. (1). Fig. 4
shows the change in transmission rate of two devices under in-plain
strain. We calculated the T(λ) for graphene and CNT based devices.
Transmission rate shows very sensitive to strain level. A less change is
observed for e∥ = 0.24% in both devices. However, a strong strain of
e∥ = 1.2% can be very destructive to transmission rate in both devices.
The change is visibly high for increased strain as the refractive index
shifts up accordingly. In both curves, decrease in T(λ) is significant for
λ = 300–400 nm, less for visible range and negligible for λ > 800 nm.
This clarifies that a photodetector might be strong enough against strain
while a UV sensor might be well kept protected against strain. The data
are consistent with the ones experimentally measured in Ref. [18].
4. Further investigations and suggestions
Following the proposed modeling approach, one can further extend
the model to calculate the change in refractive index caused by out-
plain strain [11],
−2 e C12
e⊥ =
C11 (5)
Therefore, the change in refractive index under out-plain strain will be,
(n2 − 1)(n2 + 2) e⊥ C11
Δn = .
6n −2C12 (6)
where C11 and C12 are elastic constants. Another extension could arise
by connecting the strain-induced transmission rate to current density
and the loss in current density of a solar cells via [5],
Φin (λ )
Jsc (λ ) = q ∑ T (λ ) Δλi .
hυi (7)
i
where Δλ is the interval between the adjacent wavelengths in the
spectrum irradiated with Φin density of photons with energy hυ, with
incident photon flux Φin/hυ for every single photon. Then, the loss
percentage of short-circuit current density is given by ΔJsc, due to light
reflection/absorption is given by,
J (d ) ⎞
ΔJsc (d ) = ⎛1 − sc
⎜ ∗100%
⎟
⎝ Jsc ° ⎠ (8)
where Jsc° is the primary measured value reported in literature for a
typical device. One can calculate the impact of in-plain, out-plain or
both strain on the final current density and efficiency via above for-
mulations [20]. The proposed procedure can be used to predict the
device degradation/recovery under stressing condition [21–23].
5. Conclusion
The impact of strain on the optical transmission and reflection rate
of a double layered device has been modeled through a simple ap-
proach. The connection point of the calculation was change in re-
fractive index under strain. This modeling approach is quite simply but
very useful for optimizing the device electrical and optical functionality
and the sensitivity of the device operation to thermo-mechanical strain.
The model is simple as it only requires the refractive index and ex-
tinction coefficient of the device components. We have applied the
A. Darvishzadeh et al.
Fig. 4. Transmission rate variation by in-plain strain versus a range of wavelength for graphene and nanotube based devices separately following Eq. (4).
model to graphene/ZnO and CNT/TCO devices as the simplest devices
which are widely used in optoelectronics in form of substrate or back
contact layers for solar cells, sensors or photodetectors. The calculations
show that strain can significantly reduce the transmission rate and
dramatically increase the reflection rate [24–26]. The practical out-
come of the modeling is to optimize the transparent layers less vul-
nerable to deformations and lattice strain.
References
[1] R. Bkakria, A. Sayarib, E. Shalaand, S. Wagehde, A. Al-Ghamdid, A. Bouazizi,
Effects of the graphene doping level on the optical and electrical properties of ITO/
P3HT: graphene/Au organic solar cells, Superlattice. Microst. 76 (2014) 461–471.
[2] T. Mahmoudi, Y. Wang, Y.-B. Hahn, Graphene and its derivatives for solar cells
application, Nanomater. Energy 47 (2018) 51–65.
[3] H. Liu, P. Liu, L. Bian, Ch Liu, Q. Zhou, Y. Chen, Electrically tunable terahertz
metamaterials based on graphene stacks array, Superlattice. Microst. 112 (2017)
470–479.
[4] B. Rhouma, M. Oueslati, M. Guizal, Surface plasmons on a doped graphene sheet
with periodically modulated conductivity, Superlattice. Microst. 96 (2016)
212–219.
[5] M. Aldosari, H. Sohrabpoor, N.E. Gorji, Optical modeling of graphene contacted
CdTe solar cells, Superlattice. Microst. 92 (2016) 242–248.
[6] M. Houshmand, M.H. Zandi, N.E. Gorji, Modeling of optical losses in graphene
contacted thin film solar cells, Mater. Lett. 164 (2016) 493–497.
[7] F. Guinea, Strain engineering in graphene, Solid State Commun. 152 (2012)
1437–1441.
[8] N. Levy, S.A. Burke, K.L. Meaker, M. Panlasigui, A. Zettl, F. Guinea, A.H. Castro
Neto, M.F. Crommie, Strain-induced pseudo–magnetic fields greater than 300 Tesla
in graphene nanobubbles, Science 329 (2010) 544–547 5991.
[9] A. Vazinishayan, D.R. Lambada, Sh Yang, et al., Effects of mechanical strain on
optical properties of ZnO nanowire, AIP Adv. 8 (2018) 025306.
[10] H. McDaniel, M. Pelton, N. Oh, M. Shim, Effects of lattice strain and band offset on
electron transfer rates in type-II nanorod heterostructures, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 3
(2012) 1094–1098.
[11] H. Tran, W. Du, S.A. Ghetmiri, A. Mosleh, G. Sun, et al., Systematic study of GeSn
17
Physica B: Condensed Matter 543 (2018) 14–17
absorption coefficient and refractive index for the device applications of Si-based
optoelectronics, J. Appl. Phys. 119 (2016) 103–106.
[12] N.E. Gorji, Quantitative analysis of the optical losses in CZTS thin film semi-
conductors, IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol. 13 (4) (2014) 743–748.
[13] M.J. Taghavi, M. Houshmand, M.H. Zandi, N.E. Gorji, Modeling of optical losses in
perovskite solar cells, Superlattice. Microst. 97 (2016) 424–428.
[14] L.A. Kosyachenko, E.V. Grushko, X. Mathew, Quantitative assessment of optical
losses in thin film CdS/CdTe solar cells, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 96 (2012)
231–237.
[15] H. Bi, F. Huang, J. Liang, X. Xie, M. Jiang, Transparent conductive graphene films
synthesized by ambient pressure chemical vapor deposition used as the front
electrode of CdTe solar cells, Adv. Mater. 23 (2011) 3202–3206.
[16] L. Yin, K. Zhang, H. Luo, G. Cheng, X. Ma, Zh Xiong, X. Xiao, Highly efficient
graphene-based Cu(In, Ga)Se2 solar cells with large active area, Nanoscale 6 (2014)
10879.
[17] W. Li, G. Cheng, Y. Liang, B. Tian, X. Liang, et al., Broadband optical properties of
graphene by spectroscopic ellipsometry, Carbon 99 (2016) 348–353.
[18] T.M. Barnes, X. Wu, J. Zhou, A. Duda, et al., Single-wall carbon nanotube networks
as a transparent back contact in CdTe solar cells, Appl. Phys. Lett. 90 (2007)
243503.
[19] Ph Loper, M. Stuckelberger, et al., Complex refractive index spectra of CH3NH3PbI3
perovskite thin films determined by spectroscopic ellipsometry and spectro-
photometry, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 6 (2015) 66–71.
[20] I. Moeini, M. Ahmadpour, N.E. Gorji, Modeling the instability behavior of thin film
devices: Fermi Level Pinning, Superlattice. Microst. 117 (2018) 399–405.
[21] Zh Huang, K. Lei, D. He, Y. Xu, J. Williams, L. Hu, M. McNeil, J.M. Ruso, Zh Liu,
Zh Guo, Zh Wang, Self-regulation in chemical and bio-engineering materials for
intelligent systems, CAAI Trans. Intell. Technol. 3 (1) (2018) 40–48.
[22] J. Ma, X. Jiang, M. Gong, Two-phase clustering algorithm with density exploring
distance measure, CAAI Trans. Intell. Technol. 3 (1) (2018) 59–64.
[23] H. Liu, J. Ma, W. Huang, Sensor-based complete coverage path planning in dynamic
environment for cleaning robot, CAAI Trans. Intell. Technol. 3 (1) (2018) 65–72.
[24] J. Weber, Independent metering systems, Int. J. Hydromechatron. 3 (1) (2018)
107–125.
[25] Zh Wang, Zh Xie, W. Huang, A pin-moment model of flexoelectric actuators, Int. J.
Hydromechatron. 3 (1) (2018) 72–90.
[26] J.-P. Henderson, A. Plummer, N. Johnston, An electro-hydrostatic actuator for hy-
brid active-passive vibration isolation, Int. J. Hydromechatron. 3 (1) (2018) 47–71.