New Book Materials Science » "New Research on Silicon - Structure, Properties, Technology", book edited by Vitalyi Igorevich Talanin, ISBN 978-953-51-3160-1, Print ISBN 978-953-51-3159-5, Published: May 31, 2017 under CC BY 3.0 license. © The Author(s).

Chapter 8

openaccess.png

Silicon‐Germanium (SiGe) Nanostructures for Thermoelectric Devices: Recent Advances and New Approaches to High Thermoelectric Efficiency

Download Open Access

(a) Total world energy consumption sorted by energy source between the period 1990 and 2040. Dotted lines for coal (black) and renewables (green) show the predicted effects of the USA Clean Power Plan (CPP) regulation. (b) World net electricity generation predictions sorted by energy source, for the period of 2012–2040. Both figures are reprinted with permission from Ref. [3]. Copyright 2016.
Figure 1. (a) Total world energy consumption sorted by energy source between the period 1990 and 2040. Dotted lines for coal (black) and renewables (green) show the predicted effects of the USA Clean Power Plan (CPP) regulation. (b) World net electricity generation predictions sorted by energy source, for the period of 2012–2040. Both figures are reprinted with permission from Ref. [3]. Copyright 2016.
Timeline of some breakthrough or historical event in Si‐Ge in thermoelectric, photovoltaic cells and microelectronics. References in Table 1.
Figure 2. Timeline of some breakthrough or historical event in Si‐Ge in thermoelectric, photovoltaic cells and microelectronics. References in Table 1.
Schematic diagram that briefly summarizes some of the main strategies for the improvement of the figure of merit through the increase in the power factor and the decrease in the thermal conductivity. The graph shows the behavior of the Seebeck coefficient, electrical conductivity, and thermal conductivity versus carrier concentration. This figure is adapted from Ref. [50].
Figure 3. Schematic diagram that briefly summarizes some of the main strategies for the improvement of the figure of merit through the increase in the power factor and the decrease in the thermal conductivity. The graph shows the behavior of the Seebeck coefficient, electrical conductivity, and thermal conductivity versus carrier concentration. This figure is adapted from Ref. [50].
Scheme of the most used strategies for reducing thermal conductivity and their effect on phonon scattering. Grain boundaries scatter mid‐long wavelength phonons at their interfaces, while alloy atoms, dopants, defects, lattice vibrations, and nano‐inclusions scatter short‐wavelength phonons. The electrons, which are depicted as arrows in the figure, are supposedly not scattered and thus electrical conductivity is not altered.
Figure 4. Scheme of the most used strategies for reducing thermal conductivity and their effect on phonon scattering. Grain boundaries scatter mid‐long wavelength phonons at their interfaces, while alloy atoms, dopants, defects, lattice vibrations, and nano‐inclusions scatter short‐wavelength phonons. The electrons, which are depicted as arrows in the figure, are supposedly not scattered and thus electrical conductivity is not altered.
One of the strategies that has been proven to be useful in improving thermoelectric performance is to reduce dimensionality. Here, different configurations that the silicon‐germanium has been fabricated at the nanometric scale to improve its thermoelectric properties are shown.
Figure 5. One of the strategies that has been proven to be useful in improving thermoelectric performance is to reduce dimensionality. Here, different configurations that the silicon‐germanium has been fabricated at the nanometric scale to improve its thermoelectric properties are shown.
A summary of the latest reported measurements of different structures of SixGe1−x is presented, shows (a) Seebeck coefficient, (b) electrical conductivity, and (c) power factor reported for bulk, thin films, nanomeshes, nanowires, and nanotubes. (d) The thermal conductivity for different SixGe1−x nanostructures and bulk samples as a function of the alloy composition. This figure is adapted from Ref. [100].
Figure 6. A summary of the latest reported measurements of different structures of SixGe1−x is presented, shows (a) Seebeck coefficient, (b) electrical conductivity, and (c) power factor reported for bulk, thin films, nanomeshes, nanowires, and nanotubes. (d) The thermal conductivity for different SixGe1−x nanostructures and bulk samples as a function of the alloy composition. This figure is adapted from Ref. [100].
Raman spectra of thin films deposited on gold/glass substrates: ex situ thermal treatment (in blue: a, b, c, and d) and in situ thermal treatment (in red: e, f, g, and h) for samples treated at RT, 300, 400, and 500°C, respectively. The expected vibrational bands (schematically represented) corresponding to Ge‐Ge, Si‐Si, and Si‐Ge bonds are marked on the figure. With permission from Ref. [92].
Figure 7. Raman spectra of thin films deposited on gold/glass substrates: ex situ thermal treatment (in blue: a, b, c, and d) and in situ thermal treatment (in red: e, f, g, and h) for samples treated at RT, 300, 400, and 500°C, respectively. The expected vibrational bands (schematically represented) corresponding to Ge‐Ge, Si‐Si, and Si‐Ge bonds are marked on the figure. With permission from Ref. [92].
(a) and (b) present different measurements for the ex situ (a) and in situ (b) MIC fabricated films with 500°C treatment temperatures. On the right side, the optical image of the surface along with a Raman mapping of the surface is presented. In the left side, the different Raman spectra collected corresponding to Si0.8Ge0.2 (blue color), nano‐Si1−xGex (green color), and pure silicon (red color) are shown (note that for the in situ film, b), there is no evidence of silicon segregation). The inset at the left side presents SEM image of the film surface. (c) Synchrotron radiation SR‐GIXRD diffractograms measured at 1.3775 Å wavelength for ex situ (blue color) and in situ (red color) MIC fabricated films, with heat treatments at 500°C. The heights of the intensities in dotted lines correspond to the Si‐Ge phase intensity values given in the JCPDS 04‐016‐6750 data sheet. The inset shows the calculated lattice parameters for the Si‐Ge films. This figure is adapted from Ref. [92].
Figure 8. (a) and (b) present different measurements for the ex situ (a) and in situ (b) MIC fabricated films with 500°C treatment temperatures. On the right side, the optical image of the surface along with a Raman mapping of the surface is presented. In the left side, the different Raman spectra collected corresponding to Si0.8Ge0.2 (blue color), nano‐Si1−xGex (green color), and pure silicon (red color) are shown (note that for the in situ film, b), there is no evidence of silicon segregation). The inset at the left side presents SEM image of the film surface. (c) Synchrotron radiation SR‐GIXRD diffractograms measured at 1.3775 Å wavelength for ex situ (blue color) and in situ (red color) MIC fabricated films, with heat treatments at 500°C. The heights of the intensities in dotted lines correspond to the Si‐Ge phase intensity values given in the JCPDS 04‐016‐6750 data sheet. The inset shows the calculated lattice parameters for the Si‐Ge films. This figure is adapted from Ref. [92].
(a) Sketch and optical image of a porous alumina template and (b) the SiGe film nanomesh fabricated on top of it.
Figure 9. (a) Sketch and optical image of a porous alumina template and (b) the SiGe film nanomesh fabricated on top of it.
(a) Thermal conductivity (κ, red triangles) and electrical conductivity (σ, black spheres) and (b) Seebeck coefficient (S, blue squares) and figure of merit (zT, green spheres) plotted versus the pore diameter of the nanomesh. The transport properties obtained for a Si0.8Ge0.2 film grown under the same conditions are also plotted for comparison (inside the rectangle on the left of each graph, corresponding to continuous thin film). This figure is adapted from Ref. [100].
Figure 10. (a) Thermal conductivity (κ, red triangles) and electrical conductivity (σ, black spheres) and (b) Seebeck coefficient (S, blue squares) and figure of merit (zT, green spheres) plotted versus the pore diameter of the nanomesh. The transport properties obtained for a Si0.8Ge0.2 film grown under the same conditions are also plotted for comparison (inside the rectangle on the left of each graph, corresponding to continuous thin film). This figure is adapted from Ref. [100].
(a) X‐ray diffraction and (b) Raman spectra of a Si0.8Ge0.2 grown on nanomeshes with a pore diameter of 31 nm (black line) 137 nm (blue line) and 294 nm (red line). This figure is adapted from Ref. [100].
Figure 11. (a) X‐ray diffraction and (b) Raman spectra of a Si0.8Ge0.2 grown on nanomeshes with a pore diameter of 31 nm (black line) 137 nm (blue line) and 294 nm (red line). This figure is adapted from Ref. [100].
(a) SEM image of a Si0.8Ge0.2 nanomeshed film of 294 ± 5 nm pore size. (b) Topography image by AFM and (c) surface potential image by KPM. The uniformity in the contrast of the KPM image reveals homogeneity in the surface potential of the film. This figure is adapted from Ref. [100].
Figure 12. (a) SEM image of a Si0.8Ge0.2 nanomeshed film of 294 ± 5 nm pore size. (b) Topography image by AFM and (c) surface potential image by KPM. The uniformity in the contrast of the KPM image reveals homogeneity in the surface potential of the film. This figure is adapted from Ref. [100].

Votes: 0
E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of The International NanoScience Community - Nanopaprika.eu to add comments!

Join The International NanoScience Community - Nanopaprika.eu