Application of a semi ..

empirical sputtering model to secondary electron

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

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
(referred to below and elsewhere as the "standard" model)
and the present semi-empirical model are of comparable
simplicity and are therefore compared extensively below,
Two key parameters in both models are the energy Ed ex-
pended in creating a single secondary electron in the bulk,
FIG. 1. The universal dependence of the SE yield 8 vs the primary energy E"
(with yield and energy normalized to their maximum values) is indicated
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
(solid circles), The standard model, Eqs. (5) and (8), is plotted for two-
range (R) power laws: n = 4/3 (open circles) and n = 5/3 (open squares),
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 193.136.124.196. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 secondary escape depth A which are employed in both mod-
els. The present model is derived in Sec. III, and it is demon-
strated that the parameters B, Ed' and A are essentially
equivalent in the two models. Section IV compares both
models to experimental data as a function of primary energy,
incident angie, and material parameters. Trends in the es-
cape probability B and the secondary creation energy Ed are
analyzed here. In Sec. V, the limitations and approximations
of the present model are discussed. A brief comparison to
more refined models of SE emission is also presented. The
paper concludes with a detailed summary.
II. STANDARD MODEL
The standard SE emission model developed by Salow3
and Bruining,4 and refined by Lye and Dekker8 and others,
is briefly described here in its simplest form. 5 The yield b of
low-energy electrons is given by
8= C'
_0
n(x,Ep )/(x)dx, (1)
where n (x,Ep ) is the number of secondary electrons at depth
x produced by a primary electron of energy Ep, and/(x) is
the probability that a secondary electron generated at depth
x travels to and escapes from the sample surface. The func-
tion n (x,Ep ) is assumed proportional to the stopping power
(energy loss rate)
1 dE
n(xE)=--- (2)
, p Ed dx '
where Ed is the average energy required to create a second-
ary electron. The function/ex) is given by
lex) =Bexp( -X/A), (3)
where the surface escape probability B is less than 1 and A- is
the SE escape depth. If it is further assumed that the energy
loss rate in the near-surface region is constant, H such that
dE Ep
(4)
- dx =R'
where R is the primary range, then solution ofEq. ( 1) yields
E A-
o= B _P - [1 - exp ( - R / A) ] . (5)
Ed R
It is of interest to insert some standard approximations
for the range R and escape depth A into the yield equation in
order to examine the yield dependence on material param-
eters. 9 A typical approximation for the rangelO.]I R (in em)
which provides a good description of various energy dissipa-
tion experiments is
(6)
where N is the atomic density (cm - 3) and Z is the atomic
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-
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
formula for the escape depth developed by Ono and Kan-
2383 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 68, No.5, 1 September 1990
Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to 193.136.124.196. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
aya'l which provides a good empirical description of mea-
sured escape depths is
(7)
where, in a crude but effective approximation, the average
ionization energy is assumed proportional to the first ioniza-
tion potential J of the isolated atom. With n = 4/3, Eq. (5)
may be rewritten as
onorrn = 1.11 E n~lf::'3 [1 - exp( - 2.34 E ;~~m ) ], (8)
where the yield and energy are normalized to their maxi-
mum values given by
Emax = 10.6 I Jl4Z \/4 (9)
and
8 max =0.39 B(E",ajEd ). (10)
Equations (9) and (10) are similar to the Emax relations
derived by Ono and Kanaya'l which they demonstrate pro-
vide a good description of experimental maxima in metals.
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
(assuming B,-O.S). This large value of Ed is comparable to
the energy loss for the first collision of the primary. 9 On the
other hand, it is frequently assumed that Ed is the energy
barrier for secondary emission (a few eV), represented by q;
(the work function) or q; + EF (the Fermi energy) in met-
als, and by Eg + X (energy gap plus electron affinity) in
insulators. l3 This discrepancy will be examined in the fol-
lowing sections.
The normalized energy dependence given by Eq. (8) for
n = 4/3 is plotted in Fig. 1 (open circles) along with the
corresponding equation for n = 5/3 (squares), essentially
reproducing the curves in the analogous figure from
Dionne. 7 It is clear that the n = 4/3 curve provides a good
fit at low energies while the 5/3 curve works well at high
energies, consistent with the observed power dependence of
the range. Vaughn 14 has discussed the need for a more accu-
rate equation for the purpose of vacuum electronic device
simulation. He proposed the following empirical formula:
(11 )
where k = 0.25 for E norm > 1 and 0.62 for E norm < 1. The
empirical equation is also plotted in Fig. I (x's).
For off-normal incidence of the primary electrons, the
yield is observed to increase slightly at low energies (where
the range R is on the order of the escape depth A) and more
substantially at higher energies. This effect is treated in the
standard model 15 by replacing R by R cos e where e = 0 at
normal incidence. With this substitution, the following rela-
tions are obtained:
- l/n
( 12a)
8(e)~1 (E E ) ( 12b)
0(0)- p ~ max ,
8(0)
--;::::; ( cos O)"(E'p ~ E max )• (12c)
8(0) ,
S. A. Schwarz 2383
 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
iiI. PRESENT MODEL (17)
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-
(19)
cade is approximated as
(14)
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
(15)
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 193.136.124.196. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

r 0(0)
vacuum
solid
R/2
--------------v-----------
" employ Eg. (16). Equation (22) is also inaccurate when
R/2
r cade geometry.
I
R· range '--
). • escape depth
FIG. 2. The geometric construction employed in the present model. R is the
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-
gy Em", (n =0 4/3) where R /2r = 0.72 and R / A ,= 2.3.
Dmax =0.58 BCEnmJEd)ZI:'.
Equations (23) and (24) for the maxima resemble those of
the standard model, Eqs. (9) and (10), however, Emax now
depends on Ed while Dmax is proportional to E ~;~ rather
than E max ' independently of the value of n assumed. The
ellipsoidal perturbation producing Eq. (21) does not ap-
proach the cylindrical limit at high energies as expressed in
Eq. (16) but is reasonable within the energy range of interest
here (El\orm < -10).
For off-normal incidence, a rather complex expression
was obtained in the semi-empirical sputtering model by tilt-
ing the ellipsoid along the direction of incidence. 1 Similar
results may be obtained however, as in the standard medel,
by replacing the range R by R cos (} [r by ]I cos (J in Eq.
(21 ) J. In other words, the lateral motion of the primary
electron is assumed irrelevant; only the rate of energy loss
with depth is important. In this case
E ma, (8)
......:.::..::.:..__ = (cos 8) - [[/(n - V:I)I
Emax (0)
2385 J< Appl. Phys., Vol. 68, No.5, i September 1990
Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to 193.136.124.196. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
(25b)
(25c)
bee) (cos {J)~~2
--;:::;; (l (25d)
These equations have significant implications as discussed
shortly.
IV. COMPARISONS
A. Energy dependence
The energy dependence of the SE yield in Eq. (22) is
~- indicated in Fig. 1 by the solid circles. For E > 10 the
ellipsoidal perturbation is inaccurate and on;n;'~st in;tead
E norm < ·-0,5 where the approximations for Rand l1d [Egs.
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-
B. Angle dependence
A wealth of data for the effect ofthe angle of incidence of
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
are not explained by the standard modeL First is the relative-
ly weak dependence of Oma, , as compared to E max ' on inci-
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
(24) atomic number Z.
Figure 3 shows data from Salehi and Flinn t5 for the
incident angle dependence of the yield ratio omax (B) /
omax (0) and the energy ratio Em"x Ce)/Emax (0). For con-
stant fl, the standard model predicts that the yield and ener-
gy ratios should have the same dependence on incident angle
while the present model predicts that the yield ratio should
vary as the 2/3 power of the energy ratio [Eq. (25b) J. The
present model would therefore indicate that the slope of the
yield curve in the log-log plot of Fig. 3 should be 2/3 the
slope of the energy curve, rather than equal to it. The data in
fact indicates a slope reduction of approximately a factor of
2, accounting for this factor in the empirical equation, Eq.
( 13b). As suggested by Eq. (13b), this effect is generally
evident! 8 20 and receives a simple explanation in the present
model. The present model dictates that, for n = 4/3 in Eq.
(25a), the energy ratio should vary as (cos 8) ~ \ which, in a
Taylor expansion as in Eq. (13a), would yield a k, value of
0.5. This is consistent with the smooth surface value of k
C2Sa)
suggested by Vaughn. 14 s
S. A. Schwarz 2385
 l.J- ~~~~:~~:-----------­ '" ] """'" ;;.;;, ...-;.;;;.,.;;---------- ~-(
1.a
~ I
~oJ
2.0 1 , .... &(6) 6(0)/ooS6 :

~II~ 1.°1 -.----- 3

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

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

-~-'---I--~---r---r---._J.
1 - cos a
o I 0
a)

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
b)
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

dicates that the plotted data should lie below the dotted
curve, while the present model, Eq. (25d), shows that the
(cos 0) - t dependence may easily be exceeded. This large
angular dependence is also indicated by the observation [3 J
that
0(8) = (cos (1) - 1)
(26)
.5(0)
where 1] varies from 1.3 for light elements to 0.8 for heavy
elements. The explanation for the atomic number Z depen-
dence of the exponent Tf lies in the fact that, at a given energy
Ep. Enorm = EplEmax is much larger in the low Z material
owing to the Z dependence of Em ax [Eq. (23)]. InFig.4(b),
Tf values of 0.8 and 1.3 correspond roughly to E aorrn values of
2 and 4, respectively.
In summary, the relatively slow variation of Om ax with
incident angle () as compared to E max , the (cos 8)- 'I depen-
dence of the yield with 71 exceeding 1, and the dependence of
1/ on atomic number and energy, are accounted for in the
present model.
c. Material dependence
Tabulations of experimental data for 8 max and Emax in
metals and insulators are examined below to demonstrate
that Dmax has a weaker dependence than Emax on material
parameters. Values of the secondary creation energy Ed and
the surface escape probability B are then deduced from the
data and trends in these parameters are assessed.
approximate value of the primary energy EI' normalized to Em",' (b) Pre-
diction of the present model (n ,= 4/3) from Eqs. (22) and (25). The dot-
ted curves (llcos B) would not be exceeded in the standard model.
If it is assumed that the range R is proportional to E;
with n held constant, then the standard model predicts that
8""" is proportional to Em", while the present model predicts
that 8 max is proportional to E ;:;,. Figure 5 (a) shows a plot
of om", vs. Emax from the data compiled by SeHer. l (Where a
range of values were listed, the mean value is plotted.) Fig-
ure 5 (b) is a similar plot for insulating compounds based on
the data compilation of Grais and Bastawros,10 where the
numbers in the figure correspond to the numbering system
employed in that publication. Curves for 8 max <X Emax
(dashed) and 8 max a::.E;!.;x (solid) are drawn so that they
approximately bisect the data points. The solid curves of the
present model provide a better description of the data, indi-
cating a sublinear dependence of 8 m3 x on Emax. The scatter of
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-
ues of Ed producing the two solid curves in Fig. 5 are ~ 60
e V for the metals and - 5 e V for the insulators assuming,
reasonably, that B is approximately 0.5 in both cases. [It is
shown below that Ed = 60 eV provides a good fit to experi-
mental Emux values in Eq. (23), further justifying the as-
sumption that B~O.5.] The low Ed in insulators is on the
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 193.136.124.196. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 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
49
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
..,
E
1.0 '4
13
40
30 e'
,34
;tl
80
6
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
0.5
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
20
to have relatively low Ernax values in Fig. 5 (b). Since the
,
(b)
-,- 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

1'G~
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
,
insulators
,, tor B from the experimental data for metals has, to the au-
0
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.
0.75
insulators

value in metals suggests that the development of the collision 13

cascade is limited by energy loss to the conduction band

0.50
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!?
~
....
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
CD
0.
25
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
1.0
I
2.0
I'
3.0
[
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 193.136.124.196. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 r
1,O
1 5 experiment

I 1.0
a mooel

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

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

... 0 " I)

-----Rb~ -- °0
..
c.
·o., .. o 0°

J'
A9-- - .. II-B Ay
K
III ~ I-A Cs

oL o
t
20
t
40
t
60
--,-_.
00 100
z
100

z
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.
2.0
.
Q
experiment
model
(b)

1.5 If'

. .
.""
...ca-
1
'\d' d'b
Q •
•• 0 e'
. a.
Q.
ber of conduction electrons exceeding the surface binding l.!
E 1.0
o:fr. r1fJ
I' 0
~ ~
~"
Q

'"
Q
60
energy by shifting the Fermi sphere in momentum space and 'b w..
Q 0'
'1"
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

expression is obtained for the number of secondaries genera-
ted per unit distance traveled by the primary:
N(Ep + cp) = 9.3 X 106(keV ll2 em - 1 )(E}.!2IEp cp),
(27)
With typical values inserted, this expression, multiplied by
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.
Noting that E i{2 is directly proportional to the conduction
electron density Nv, where v i.s the valency, Eq. (27) predicts
that the contribution of the conduction band electrons to the
yield is proportional to vi cp. This relation is appealing be-
cause an inverse dependence on work function d> is main-
tained, which can, for example, explain trends ~ith cesia-
tion. With regard to Fig. 7, the illustrated trends are now
seen to be reasonable. The group I-A and U-B elements have
a valency of 1 and consequently low B values. The group IlI-
A elements, with a valency of 3, form an upper bound in the
figure with B values of ~O.6. A more detailed analysis of
these B values is unwarranted, in consideration of the large
experimental error and the crude assumptions employed.
The assumption that Ed is constant is further discussed in
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)
respectively, and compared to the experimental data from
Fig. 5(a). Constant values of Ed = 60 eV and B = 0.45 are
employed, so that the observed yield variation is due only to
a geometrical effect, while variations ill the surface escape
04-----,----,
0 20 40 60
,-----1
SO 100
Z
FIG. 8. (a) Eq. (23) of the present model for En"" (squares) is compared to
experimental data from fig. 5(a) (hullets) as a function of atomic number
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
fixed at 0.45.
probability or secondary production are ignored. Neverthe-
less, the rise of the maxima with atomic number Z is well
accounted for. The correlation with ionization potential I is
weaker but still evident. (Ono and Kanaya 9 obtain a superi-
or fit to Om ax data with a similar formula, derived from a
diffusion model in which the relatively weak Z dependence
of omax results from electron reflection effects.) Values of B
could be derived from Fig. 8(b) to force an exact fit, how-
ever, these values would depend on the assumed material
dependences for R and A. while the values derived from the
experimental 0lllax / Emax ratios in Fig. 7 do not. Values of Ed
could similarly be chosen to force a fit to the Emax data in
Fig. 8(a), however, these values would also be affected by
the assumed material dependencies, the large experimental
uncertainties, and the weak dependence of Emax on Ed'
V. DISCUSSION
It is appropriate to consider whether the present model
can be applied to ion-induced SE emission. In most cases of
interest, the ratio RIA. is too large ( r ~ 1 ) and Eq. (21 ) of the
present model is therefore inapplicable. Figure 9 shows a fit
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 193.136.124.196. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 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.
f2d

I <'
which more closely resembles the expression employed by
2l .: I Sigmund and Tougaard l7 and is equivalent to employing a
I
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
0
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
severe.
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

_(1T)l/3
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

(rr)
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 193.136.124.196. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 maximum is observed to occur near the energy correspond-
ing to the maximum in the stopping power. For electron-
induced SE emission, the total stopping power generally
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-
ping power, to the extent that it influences the parameter R,
plays an important role in the present model. At high pri-
mary energies, as discussed, the stopping power proportion-
ality is dominant. At lower energies, however, a strict pro-
portionality to stopping power would not lead to an energy
maximum Emux which varies with incident angle, nor would
it predict an energy dependence for the relative increase in
yield 8(e)/8(0).
Reflection or backscattering of primary ions has not
been specifically accounted for in the present model. In the
diffusion model,9 backscattering results in the relatively
weak Z dependence of Dmax as observed in Fig. 8. In the
transport modeV 4 backscattering reduces the cosine expo-
nent '1 in Eq. (26). It is clear that backscattering should be
explicitly accounted for in a detailed theory. The effect of
backscattering is, to some extent, implicit in the present
model. In the near spherical low energy limit, backscattering
is relatively unimportant since a large fraction of the primary
energy is deposited near the surface. At higher energies, the
reflection probability affects the probability of energy loss in
the near-surface region and can be approximated by a
smooth etfece l on the Z dependence of the range approxi-
mation. Since the range approximation Eq. (6) already con-
tains a strong Z dependence, which leads to a reasonable fit,
the omission of the reflection coefficient is not considered to
be a major source of error. Indeed, the Z dependence of the
reflection coefficient and the primary range have a common
origin. In addition, backscattering may playa role in energy
dissipation measurements of the primary range, such as
those which produced the approximation for the range given
in Eq. (6). Ono and Kanaya9 have demonstrated the effect
of variations in the backscattering coefficient or the range
exponent n on the shape of the universal curve. In the present
model, the experimental results could be mimicked by using
slightly increased n values in high Z materials.
There are several important theoretical approaches to
the problem of SE emission such as the diffusion models, 9
the transport models,24 and Monte Carlo simulations, 16
which account, either implicitly or explicitly, for the nonlin-
ear depth distribution of secondaries. These theories address
several issues, such as SE energy distributions, lateral distri-
butions, and transmission yields, which are outside the scope
of the present model. The Boltzmann transport theory ofSE
emission developed by Schou24 closely parallels the sputter-
ing theory of Sigmund. 22 The spatial distribution for energy
loss to ionization, D(E,x) , typically peaks at ~ R 13 in the
transport theory, as compared to R /2 for the maximum el-
lipsoid width in the present model. The review by Schou24
provides useful criticisms of assumptions in the semi-empiri-
cal models such as the use of mean values for Ed and },. The
present model should not be viewed as a substitute for exist-
ing theories, but rather as a useful means by which to visual-
ize important experimental trends. A particular strength of
2390 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 68, No.5, 1 September 1990
Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to 193.136.124.196. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
the present approach is the ability of the resulting simple
equation to simultaneously describe energy, mass, and angle
effects with good accuracy.
VI. SUMMARY
A semi-empirical model was described which estimates
the SE yield as the fraction of displaced particles generated
in an ellipsoidal disturbed volume within the escape depth of
the surface. The most commonly employed ("standard")
semi-empirical model, in its simplest form, focuses on the
interaction of the primary electron with the near-surface re-
gion. Both models lead to simple formulas which predict the
dependence of the yield on primary energy, incident angle,
and material parameters. A detailed comparison of these for-
mulas to experimental data in the literature led to the follow-
ing results: 0) The present model provides a superior fit to
the universal energy dependence curve over a wide energy
range; (ii) The present model predicts that the maximum
energy Emax is more severely affected by a change in incident
angle than the corresponding maximum yield Dmax , in ac-
cord with experiment; (iii) The present model predicts that
the yield ratio O(tJ)/D(O) can significantly exceed
(cos tJ) -- 1, in accord with experiment; (iv) The present
model provides an explanation for the (cos f) - 'I depen-
dence of the yield ratio, where 7] is observed to vary from 1.3
for low Z elements to 0.8 for high Z elements. It also pro-
vides a reasonable estimate of 7]; (v) The present model pro-
vides a superior description for the material dependence of
the experimental ratio omaJEmax; (vi) Experimental
omax 1Emux ratios determine the approximate value of the
secondary creation energy Ed' Ed is ~60 eV in metals and
- 5 eV in insulators, suggesting that a large fraction of the
primary energy Ep is dissipated by the conduction-band
electrons; (vii) The order of magnitude reduction of Ed in
insulators results in more than a factor of 2 increase in Emax
in the present model, as observed experimentally. This sug-
gests that an increased production of bulk secondaries, as
well as an increase in the escape depth, is responsible for high
insulator yields; (viii) The ratio B 1 E ~13, where B is the sur-
face escape probability, may be deduced from experimental
data without knowledge of the escape depth 11. orthe range R;
(ix) The deduced surface escape probabilities B in insulators
are inversely dependent on electron affinity..t, and saturate
for low values of X; (x) The deduced B values in metals
suggest a trend with metal valency, in accord with the model
of Baroody;6 (xi) Material trends are reasonably repro-
duced in either model with the range R and escape depth 11.
approximations employed; (xii) Ion-induced SE emission
data are generally outside the region of applicability of the
present model, however, the values of the escape probability
B and secondary creation energy Ed deduced from one set of
data are in good agreement with the values obtained for elec-
tron-induced SE emission; (xiii) A method to extend the
model to higher (E~ > lOEmax) and lower (Ep < O.5Emax)
energies is described.
The above results arise in the present model from the
nonlinear depth distribution of created secondaries. The
model provides a useful visualization of several experimental
S. A. Schwarz 2390
 trends which are not well described in the standard model.
The simple equation for the SE yield simultaneously de-
scribes variations with primary energy, incident angle, and
material parameters with sufficient accuracy to be of use in
process simulations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is grateful to C. C. Chang, D. M. Hwang, R.
B. Marcus, and N. G. Stoffel for useful discussions.
1 S. A. Schwarz and e. R. Helms. J. App!. Phys. 50, 5492 (1979).
l s. A. Schwarz, J. Vac. Sci. Tech. A 6,2069 (1988).
3 H. Salow, Z. Tech. Phys. 21 8 (1940).
4 H. Bruinillg, Physics and Applicarions of Secondary Electron Emission
(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954).
'H. Seiler, J. App!. Pbys. 54, R 1 (1983).
tE. M. Baroody, Phys. Rev. 71!, 780 (1950).
7 G. F. Dionne, J. App!. Phys. 44, 536 t (1973).
8 R. G. Lye and A. J. Dekker, Phys. Rev. 107, 977 (1957).
oS. Ono and K. Kanaya, J. Phys. D. 12,619 (1979).
IC K. L Grais and A. M. Bastawros, J. App!. Phys. 53, 5239 (1982).
"J. R. Young, J. App!. Phys. 27,1 (1956).
2391 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 68, No.5, 1 September 1990
Downloaded 09 Feb 2011 to 193.136.124.196. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
12 K. Kanaya and S. Ono, J. Phys. D. 11, 1495 (1978).
"G. F. Dionne, J. Appl. Phys. 46,3347 (1975).
14J. R. M. Vaughn. IEEE Trans. EI. Dev. 36,1963 (1989).
"M. Salehi and E. A. Flinn, J. App!. Phys. 52, 994 (1981).
16 Z. J. Ding and R. Shimizu, Surf. Sci. 197, 539 (l9B8).
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).
!"C. Bouchard and 1. D. Carette, Surf. Sci. 100, 241 (1980).
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).
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).
24 J. Schou, Scann. Micros. 2, 607 (1988).
25R, A. Baragiola, E. V. Alanso, and A. Oliva Florio, Phys. Rev. B 19,121
(1979).
2<> A. Koyama, T. Shikata, and H. Sakairi, lpn. J. App\. Phys. 21, 65 (198!).
27 D. Hasselkamp, Die ioneninduzierte Kinetische Elektronen-emission von
Metallen bei Miuier!!n und Grossen Projektil-energien (University of
Giesscn-Hll.bititationsschrift, Giessen, 1985).
'8 H. H. Andersen and J. F. Ziegler, Hydrogen Stopping Powers and Ranges
in all Elements (Pergamon, New York, 1977) pp. 1-317.
'"e. J. Tung, 1. C. Ashley, and R. H. Ritchie, Surf. Sci. 81, 427 (1979).
J(J J. C. Ashley, C. J. Tung, and R H. Ritchie, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 22,
2533 (1975).
S. A. Schwarz 2391