The stacking consists of AO and BO 2 layers, which are charge neutral in one of the oxides like the (SrO) 0 and (TiO 2) 0 layers in STO, but have charge +1/−1 in the other oxides, like (LaO) +1 and (AlO 2) −1 in LAO. The compensating positive charge at the exposed surface of GTO charge disproportionates due to correlation effect making the surface insulating as opposed to that in LAO which remains metallic within band theory and presumably becomes insulating due to surface disorder or surface reconstruction.įollowing the pioneering work by Ohtomo and Hwang 1 on LAO/STO, there has been much effort on understanding the interface (IF) between two different insulating ABO 3 perovskites. The positive charge at the vacuum surface that compensates the 2DEG at the interface also exhibits distinct behaviors in the two systems. On the other hand, for a thin film geometry, the interface carrier density builds up only beyond a threshold thickness of LAO. The superlattice geometry in LAO/STO offers qualitatively the same result as in GTO/STO. We find an interface carrier density of 0.5 e −/Ti, independent of GTO thickness in both superlattice and thin film geometries, in contrast to LAO/STO. Our GTO/STO results are in excellent agreement with experiments, but qualitatively different from LAO/STO. We present ab-initio electronic structure calculations for the interface between a Mott insulator GdTiO 3 (GTO) and a band insulator SrTiO 3 (STO) and compare our results with those for the widely studied LaAlO 3/SrTiO 3 (LAO/STO) interface between two band insulators. Emergent phases in the two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) formed at the interface between two insulating oxides have attracted great attention in the past decade.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |