# Quantum conductance of silicon-doped carbon wire nanojunctions

- Dominik Szczȩśniak
^{1, 2}Email author, - Antoine Khater
^{1}, - Zygmunt Ba̧k
^{2}, - Radosław Szczȩśniak
^{3}and - Michel Abou Ghantous
^{4}

**7**:616

**DOI: **10.1186/1556-276X-7-616

© Szczesniak et al.; licensee Springer. 2012

**Received: **28 July 2012

**Accepted: **11 October 2012

**Published: **7 November 2012

## Abstract

Unknown quantum electronic conductance across nanojunctions made of silicon-doped carbon wires between carbon leads is investigated. This is done by an appropriate generalization of the phase field matching theory for the multi-scattering processes of electronic excitations at the nanojunction and the use of the tight-binding method. Our calculations of the electronic band structures for carbon, silicon, and diatomic silicon carbide are matched with the available corresponding density functional theory results to optimize the required tight-binding parameters. Silicon and carbon atoms are treated on the same footing by characterizing each with their corresponding orbitals. Several types of nanojunctions are analyzed to sample their behavior under different atomic configurations. We calculate for each nanojunction the individual contributions to the quantum conductance for the propagating *σ*, *Π*, and *σ*^{∗}electron incidents from the carbon leads. The calculated results show a number of remarkable features, which include the influence of the ordered periodic configurations of silicon-carbon pairs and the suppression of quantum conductance due to minimum substitutional disorder and artificially organized symmetry on these nanojunctions. Our results also demonstrate that the phase field matching theory is an efficient tool to treat the quantum conductance of complex molecular nanojunctions.

### Keywords

Nanoelectronics Quantum wires Electronic transport Finite-difference methods 85.35.-p 73.63.Nm 31.15.xf## Background

Quantitative analysis of electronic quantum transport in nanostructures is essential for the development of nanoelectronic devices [1]. The monatomic *linear* carbon wire (MLCW) systems are expected in this context to have potentially interesting technological applications, in particular as connecting junction elements between larger device components [2]. In this respect, electronic quantum transport properties are the key features of such wire nanojunctions [3].

Carbon exists in nature under a wide range of allotropic forms as the two-dimensional graphene [4], the cage fullerenes [5], and the quasi one-dimensional carbon nanotubes [6]. These forms exhibit exceptional physical properties and can be considered as promising components for future nanodevices [7]. The discovery of MLCW, [8–14] turns the attention to another intriguing carbon allotropic form. In the experiment conducted recently by Jin et al. [14], MLCW was produced by directly removing carbon atoms row by row from the graphene sheets, leading to a relatively stable freestanding nanostructure.

At present, the available experimental data do not provide essential knowledge about the electronic properties of MLCW systems, and only theoretical studies shed some light on these properties. Furthermore, although the MLCW systems were investigated for a long time from the theoretical point of view [15–26], their interest was not highlighted until recently due to the open attention paid to other carbon allotropic forms. It has been shown in particular that from the structural point of view, MLCW can form either as cumulene wires (interatomic double bonds) or polyyne wires (alternating interatomic single and triple bonds) [14, 17, 19, 27, 28]. However, there is no straightforward answer as to which of these two structures is the favorable one; experimental studies do not give a satisfactory answer, and theoretical calculations yield provisions which depend on applied computational methods. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations predict double-bond structures [29, 30], whereas *ab initio* Hartree-Fock (HF) results favor alternating bond systems [15–18, 27]. This situation arises from the fact that DFT tends to underestimate bond alternation (second-order Jahn-Teller effect), while HF overestimates it [27].

More recently, first-principle calculations have indicated [31] that both structures are stable and present mechanical characteristics of a purely one-dimensional nanomaterial. Moreover, on the basis of the first-principle calculations [31–42], the cumulene MLCW wires are expected to be almost perfect conductors, even better than linear gold wires [29], while the corresponding polyyne wires are semiconducting [41]. It is also worth noting that the MLCW cumulene system may exhibit conductance oscillations with the even and odd numbers of the wire atoms [28, 42].

The electrons which contribute to transport present characteristic wavelengths comparable to the size of molecular nanojunctions, leading to quantum coherent effects. The transport properties of a given nanojunction are then described in terms of the Landauer-Büttiker theory [47, 48], which relates transmission scattering to quantum conductance. Several approaches have been developed in order to calculate the scattering transmission and reflection cross sections in nanostructures, where the most popular are based on first-principle calculations [49, 50] and semiempirical methods using the non-equilibrium Green’s function formalism [51, 52].

In the present work, we investigate the electronic scattering processes on the basis of phase field matching theory (PFMT) [53, 54], originally developed for the scattering of phonons and magnons in nanostructures [55–59]. Our theoretical method is based on appropriate phase matching of the Bloch states of ideal leads to the local states in the scattering region. In this approach, the electronic properties of the system are described in the framework of the tight-binding formalism (TB) which is widely exploited for electronic transport calculations [54, 60–63] and for simulating the STM images of nanostructures [64, 65]. In particular, we employ the appropriate Slater-Koster [66] type Hamiltonian parameters calculated on the basis of the Harrison’s tight-binding theory (HTBT) [67]. The PFMT method, which is formally equivalent to the method of non-equilibrium Green’s functions [68], can be considered consequently as a transparent and efficient mathematical tool for the calculation of the electronic quantum transport properties for a wide range of molecular-sized nanojunction systems.

The present paper is organized in the following manner. In the ‘Methods’ section, we give the detailed discussion of theoretical PFMT formalism. Our numerical results, which incorporate propagating and evanescent electronic states, are presented per individual lead modes in the ‘Results and discussion’ section. Also presented are the total conductance spectra; they are compared with results based on first-principle calculations when available. Finally, the discussion and conclusions are given in the ‘Conclusions’ section. Appropriate appendices which supplement the theoretical model are also presented.

## Methods

### Theoretical model and propagating states

The schematic representation of the system under study with an arbitrary nanojunction region is presented in Figure 1. With reference to the Landauer-Büttiker theory for the analysis of the electronic scattering processes [47, 48], this system is divided into three main parts, namely the finite silicon-doped carbon wire nanojunction region, made up of a given composition of carbon (black) and silicon (orange) atoms, and two other regions to the right and left of the nanojunction which are semi-infinite quasi one-dimensional carbon leads. Moreover, for the purpose of quantum conductance calculations, the so-called irreducible region and the matching domains are depicted (see the ‘Phase field matching theory’ subsection for more details). Figure 1 is used throughout the ‘Methods’ section as a graphical reference for analytical discussion.

This is defined in general for a system of *N*_{
x
}inequivalent atoms per unit cell, where *N*_{
l
}denotes the number of basis orbitals per atomic site, assuming spin degeneracy. In Equation 1, E_{i,j} denotes on-diagonal matrices composed of both diagonal ${\epsilon}_{l}^{n,\alpha}$ and off-diagonal ${h}_{l,{l}^{\prime},m}^{n,{n}^{\prime},\beta}$ elements for a selected unit cell. In contrast, the H_{i,j}matrices contain only off-diagonal elements for interactions between different unit cells. The index *α* identifies the atom type, C or Si, on the *n* th site in a unit cell. Each diagonal element is characterized by the lower index *l* for the angular momentum state. The off-diagonal elements ${h}_{l,{l}^{\prime},m}^{n,{n}^{\prime},\beta}$ describe the *m*-type bond, (*m*=*σ*,*Π*), between *l* and *l*^{
′
} nearest-neighbor states. The index *β* identifies the types of interacting neighbors, C-C, Si-Si, or Si-C.

where ${\eta}_{l,{l}^{\prime},m}$ values are the dimensionless Harrison coefficients; *m*_{
e
}, the electron mass in vacuum; and *d*_{
β
}, the interatomic distance for interacting neighbors. Explicit forms of the E_{i,j} and H_{i,j} matrices are given in Appendix Appendix 1. The tight-binding parameter schemes are illustrated in Figure 1; however, it is noteworthy that the *n* and *n*^{
′
}indices for coupling parameters are dropped for simplicity in this figure.

*ϕ*

_{ l }(

**r**) as follows:

_{ N }, the position vector of the selected unit cell; and R

_{ N }, the position vector of the

*n*th atom in the selected unit cell. For ideal leads, the wave function coefficients

*c*

_{ l }(r

_{ n }−R

_{ N },k) are characterized under the Bloch-Floquet theorem in consecutive unit cells by the following phase relation:

*z*is the phase factor

which corresponds here to waves propagating to the right (+) or to the left (−).

*N*, may be expressed in a square matrix form, with an orthonormal minimal basis set of local wave functions as follows:

*E*stands for the electron eigenvalues, and I is the identity matrix, while the dynamical matrix M

_{ d }contains the Hamiltonian matrix elements and the

*z*phase factors; c(k,

*E*) is the

*N*

_{ x }×

*N*

_{ l }size vector defined as follows:

Equation 6 gives the *N*_{
x
}×*N*_{
l
}eigenvalues with corresponding eigenvectors which determine the electronic structure of the lead system, where *l* under the vector c_{
l
}corresponds to *N*_{
l
}=4 orbitals *s*,*p*_{
x
},*p*_{
y
},*p*_{
z
}. Note that the choice of an orthonormal minimal basis set of local wavefunctions may result initially in an inadequate description of the considered electronic eigenvalues. However, as can be seen later, the proper choice of the TB on-site energies and coupling terms allows us to to obtain agreement with the DFT results. This is a systematic procedure in our calculations.

### Evanescent states

*i*κ such that

_{1}+

*i*κ

_{2}such that

The phase factors of Equations 8 and 9 correspond to pairs of hermitian evanescent and divergent solutions on the leads. Only the evanescent states are physically considered where spatial evanescence occurs to the right and left, away from the nanojunction localized states. It is important to note that the *l*-type evanescent state corresponds to energies beyond the propagating band structure for this state.

*z*(

*E*) for the propagating and evanescent states on the leads may be obtained by various techniques. An elegant method presented previously for phonon and magnon excitations [59] is adapted here for the electrons. It is described on the basis of Equations 4 and 6 by the generalized eigenvalue problem for

*z*:

Equation 10 gives the 2*N*_{
x
}*N*_{
l
}eigenvalues as an ensemble of *N*_{
x
}*N*_{
l
}pairs of *z* and *z*^{−1}. Only solutions with |*z*|=1 (propagating waves) and |*z*|<1 (evanescent waves) are retained as physical ones. In Equation 10, k is then replaced by the appropriate energy *E* variable. Furthermore, for systems with more than one atom per unit cell, the matrices H_{N,N−1} and ${H}_{N,N-1}^{\u2020}$ in this procedure are singular. In order to obtain the physical solutions, the eigenvalue problem of Equation 10 is reduced from the 2*N*_{
x
}*N*_{
l
} size problem to the appropriate 2*N*_{
l
}one, using the partitioning technique (please see Appendix Appendix 2).

### Phase field matching theory

The scattering problem at the nanojunction is considered next. An electron incident along the leads has a given energy *E* and wave vector k, where *E*=*E*_{
γ
}(k) denotes the available dispersion curves for *γ* = 1, 2,.., *γ* propagating eigenmodes, where *γ* corresponds to the total number of allowed solutions for the eigenvalue problem of phase factors in Equation 10. In any given energy interval, however, these may be evanescent or propagating eigenmodes and together constitute a complete set of available channels necessary for the scattering analysis.

The irreducible domain of atomic sites for the scattering problem includes the nanojunction domain itself, (*N*∈[0,*D*−1]), and the atomic sites on the left and right leads which interact with the nanojunction, as in Figure 1. This constitutes a necessary and sufficient region for our considerations, i.e., any supplementary atoms from the leads included in the calculations do not change the final results. The scattering at the boundary yields then the coherent reflected and transmitted fields, and in order to calculate these, we establish the *system* of equations of motion for the atomic sites (*N*∈[−1,*D*]) of the irreducible nanojunction domain.

_{ nano }is a (

*D*+ 2)×(

*D*+ 4) matrix composed of the block matrices $(EI-{E}_{N,N}-{H}_{N,N-1}-{H}_{N,N-1}^{\u2020})$, and the state vector V of dimension

*D*+ 4 is given as follows:

Since the number of unknown coefficients in Equation 11 is always greater than the number of equations, such a set of equations cannot be solved directly.

*γ*over the interval of energies

*E*=

*E*

_{ γ }, the field coefficients on the left and right sides of the irreducible nanojunction domain may be written as follows:

where *γ*^{
′
}∈*Γ* is an arbitrary channel into which the incident electron wave scatters, and c_{
l
}(r_{
n
},*z*_{
γ
},*E*_{
γ
}) denotes the the eigenvector of the lead dynamical matrix of Equation 6 for the inequivalent site *n* at *z*_{
γ
} and *E*_{
γ
}. The terms ${r}_{\gamma ,{\gamma}^{\prime}}$ and ${t}_{\gamma ,{\gamma}^{\prime}}$ denote the scattering amplitudes for backscattering and transmission, respectively, from the *γ* into the *γ*^{
′
}eigenmodes and constitute the basis of the Hilbert space which describes the reflection and transmission processes.

*D*+ 2)×(

*D*+ 4) matrix of the system of equations of motion, Equation 11, into an inhomogeneous (

*D*+ 2)×(

*D*+ 2) matrix for the scattering problem. This procedure leads to the new form of the following vector:

The rectangular sparse matrix in Equation 15 has the (*D* + 4)×(*D* + 2) size. The vectors ${r}_{\gamma ,{\gamma}^{\prime}}$ and ${t}_{\gamma ,{\gamma}^{\prime}}$ are column vectors of the backscattering and transmission Hilbert basis.

In Equation 16, M is the *matched*(*D* + 2)×(*D* + 2) square matrix, and the vector of dimension (*D* + 2) which incorporates the ${M}_{1}^{\mathrm{in}}$ and ${M}_{2}^{\mathrm{in}}$ elements, regroups the inhomogeneous terms of the incident wave. The explicit forms of the M matrix elements and and ${M}_{N}^{\mathrm{in}}$ vectors are presented in Appendix Appendix 3.

In practice, Equation 16 can be solved using standard numerical procedures, over the entire range of available electronic energies, yielding the coefficient c_{
l
} for atomic sites on the nanojunction domain itself as well as the *γ* reflection ${r}_{\gamma ,{\gamma}^{\prime}}\left(E\right)$ and the *γ* transmission ${t}_{\gamma ,{\gamma}^{\prime}}\left(E\right)$ coefficients.

*v*

_{ γ }in order to obtain the unitarity of the scattering matrix as follows:

where *v*_{
γ
}≡*v*_{
γ
}(*E*) denotes the group velocity of the incident electron wave in the eigenmode *γ*. The group velocities are calculated by a straightforward procedure as in Appendix Appendix 4. For evanescent eigenmodes, ${v}_{{\gamma}^{\prime}}=0$. Although the evanescent eigenmodes do not contribute to the electronic transport, they are required for the complete description of the scattering processes.

*R*

_{ γ }(

*E*), for an electron incident in the

*γ*eigenmode and the total electronic reflection probability,

*R*(

*E*), from all the eigenmodes may be expressed, respectively, as follows:

*T*

_{ γ }(

*E*) and

*T*(

*E*) probabilities are very important for the electronic scattering processes since they correspond directly to the experimentally measurable observables. Likewise, the total transmission

*T*(

*E*

_{ γ }) allows to calculate the overall electronic conductance. In this work, we assume the zero-bias limit and write the total conductance in the following way:

In Equation 21, *G*_{0} is the conductance quantum and equals 2*e*^{2}/h. Due to the Fermi-Dirac distribution, *G*(*E*_{
F
}) is calculated at the Fermi level of the perfect lead band structure since electrons only at this level give the important contribution to the electronic conductance. The Fermi energy can be determined using various methods where, in the present work, *E*_{
F
} is calculated as the basis of the density of state calculations.

## Results and discussion

### The tight-binding model and basic electronic properties

In this section, we present the results of our model calculations for the electronic structure of carbon, silicon, and silicon carbide wires under study. Our results are validated by comparison with DFT calculations [29, 69], which allow us to establish unambiguously our choice of the tight-binding parameters for these systems.

In principle, we can develop our model calculations for the nanojunctions and their leads using any adequate type of orbitals; even a single orbital suffices to calculate the electronic quantum transport for carbon nanojunctions [44]. However, this approximation is inadequate for silicon atoms. To treat both types of atoms on the same footing, we thus characterize the atoms by the electronic states 2*s* and 2*p* for carbon and by 3*s* and 3*p* for silicon. Such a scheme gives us four different orbitals, namely *s*, *p*_{
x
}, *p*_{
y
}, and *p*_{
z
}, for both types of atoms.

*p*

_{ x },

*p*

_{ y }, and

*p*

_{ z }. The off-diagonal distance-dependent ${h}_{l,{l}^{\prime},m}^{n,{n}^{\prime},\beta}$ elements are calculated on the basis of Equation 2. For symmetry considerations, these latter elements are positive or negative, also

*h*

_{s,p,σ}=

*η*

_{s,p,σ}= 0 and

*h*

_{p,p,σ}=

*η*

_{p,p,σ}= 0, for

*p*

_{ y }and

*p*

_{ z }, and ${h}_{p,p,\Pi}={h}_{{p}_{y},{p}_{y},\Pi}={h}_{{p}_{z},{p}_{z},\Pi}={h}_{{p}_{x},{p}_{x},\Pi}=0$[70]. Table 1 is supplemented for the reader by Figure 2 which gives the dependence of the hopping integrals with distance as calculated in the present paper (continuous curves), in comparison with the Harrison’s data (open symbols).

**Tight-binding parameters and Harrison’s dimensionless coefficients proposed in this work and compared with original values**

Harrison TB parameters | Present TB parameters | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

| C | Si | C | Si | ||

| −19.38 | −14.79 | −18.89 | −13.5 | ||

| −11.07 | −7.59 | −10.94 | −8.38 | ||

| C-C | Si-Si | Si-C | C-C | Si-Si | Si-C |

| −1.32 | −1.32 | −1.32 | −0.93 | −1.48 | −1.11 |

| 1.42 | 1.42 | 1.42 | 0.94 | 1.19 | 0.95 |

| 2.22 | 2.22 | 2.22 | 1.03 | 1.18 | 0.99 |

| −0.63 | −0.63 | −0.63 | −0.59 | −0.41 | −0.62 |

| C-C | Si-Si | Si-C | C-C | Si-Si | Si-C |

| −5.95 | −2.08 | −3.70 | −4.19 | −2.33 | −3.11 |

| 6.40 | 2.24 | 3.98 | 4.23 | 1.87 | 2.66 |

| 10.01 | 3.50 | 6.22 | 4.64 | 1.86 | 2.77 |

| −2.84 | −0.99 | −1.77 | −2.66 | −0.65 | −1.74 |

| C-C | Si-Si | Si-C | C-C | Si-Si | Si-C |

| 1.3 | 2.2 | 1.649 | 1.3 | 2.2 | 1.649 |

Figure 2 clearly indicates the fact that qualitatively, both Harrison’s and our rescaled coupling parameters for silicon, carbon and diatomic silicon carbide wires, present the same functional behavior, confirming the desired conservation of their physical character. However, most of the rescaled coupling parameters have somehow smaller values than those initially proposed by Harrison; this trend can be also traced in Table 1 for the onsite parameters. This difference stems from the influence of the low-coordinated systems are considered here, whereas the initial Harrison values are given to match tetrahedral phases [67]. Another general observation can be made for the tight-binding parameters of the *σ*-type interactions (the *h*_{s,p,σ}and *h*_{p,p,σ}ones), which present much closer values over the considered interatomic distance range than in the case of Harrison’s data.

In Figure 3A,B for silicon and carbon, the red and blue colors correspond, respectively, to the *σ* and *σ*^{∗} bands. These arise from the *s* *p*_{
x
}orbital hybrids where the lowest lying bands are always occupied by two electrons. Bands marked by the red color have the *Π* character and are degenerate. Their origin in the *p*_{
y
}and *p*_{
z
}orbitals allows them to hold up to four electrons. In Figure 3C for the diatomic silicon carbide, starting from the band structure minimum, consecutive bands have their origin in the following orbitals: carbon 3*s* (red band), silicon 3*s* (green band), carbon 3*p* (blue and black bands), and silicon 3*p* (orange and violet bands). The blue and orange colors for the silicon carbide electronic structure indicate two doubly degenerate *Π*-type bands.

The metallic or insulating character of the considered atomic wires, following the Fermi level, is appropriate only when the wires are infinite. It is well known that this character can change for the case of finite size wires with a limited number of atoms or due to the type and quality of the leads.

### Numerical characteristics for the carbon leads

In general, the infinite carbon wires which are considered as the leads in our work, present electronic band structure characteristics which incorporate not only propagating (see Figure 3A), but also evanescent states. Both of these types of states, which are derivable from the generalized eigenvalue problem as presented in Equation 10, constitute a complete set over the allowed energies for the electrons incident along the leads, which can be further scattered at the considered nanojunction. This complete set of eigenstates is used as the basis for the numerical calculations of the quantum conductance presented in the ‘Transport properties’ subsection.

*z*(

*E*) for the

*σ*,

*σ*

^{∗}, and

*Π*electronic states of the carbon leads. As described by Equations 5, 8, and 9, the eigenstates in Figure 4A characterized by |

*z*|=1 correspond to the propagating electronic waves described by the real wave vectors, whereas those by |

*z*|<1 correspond to the evanescent and divergent eigenstates for the complex wave vectors. Furthermore, for convenience, the corresponding moduli of the complex

*z*factors are presented in Figure 4B. Note that |

*z*|=1 solutions may be grouped into pairs for the two directions of propagation linked by time-reversal symmetry. Due to the fact that each of these two solutions provides the same information, we consider waves propagating only from left to right. However, this is not true for the |

*z*|<1 solutions which are always considered for both left and right as spatially evanescent. As can be seen in Figure 4, the generalized results for

*σ*,

*σ*

^{∗}, and

*Π*states are represented by the same colors as the corresponding states in Figure 3A, following their propagating character for |

*z*|=1, and further extended to the physically |

*z*|<1 evanescent solutions.

Figure 4 provides a more complete description for the electronic states of a given system compared to a typical band structure representation as in Figure 3, since both the propagating and evanescent states are shown. Such a general representation clearly indicates the importance of the evanescent eigenstates for a full description of the scattering problem presented in the ‘Transport properties’ subsection. The energies considered in our calculations correspond to the range within the band structure boundaries, marked by two vertical dotted lines in Figure 4B. As a consequence, not only the propagating states, but also the evanescent solutions are included in the quantum conductance calculations in the ‘Transport properties’ subsection.

### Transport properties

In Figure 6, the transmission spectra present strong scattering resonances, showing an increasing complexity with the increasing size and configurational order of the nanojunctions. The valence *σ* state exhibits negligible transmission for all of the considered nanojunctions. The degenerate *Π* states and the *σ*^{∗}state present in contrast the finite transmission spectra. However, it is only the *Π* states which cross the Fermi level, giving rise to electronic conductance across the nanojunction within the zero-bias limit.

In particular, the first three considered systems represent increasing lengths of the diatomic silicon carbide nanojunction with the increasing number of ordered Si-C atomic pairs. The transmission at the Fermi level for these systems is nonzero (see Figure 3C), which contrasts with the insulating character of the infinite silicon carbide wire. One can connect this finite transmission to the indirect bandgap (*Δ*) around the Fermi level for the diatomic silicon-carbide infinite wire (for more details, please see Figure 3C). This gap, *Δ*∼1*.* 5 eV, is indeed related to the difference between the binding energies of the silicon and carbon atoms and corresponds to an effective potential barrier for the propagating *Π*-state electrons. As the wire length increases by adding Si-C atomic pairs, as for systems 1 to 3 of Figure 5B, the transmission decreases due to cumulative barrier effects. We note that a similar effect for the monovalent diatomic copper-cobalt wire nanojunctions has been observed in a previous work [54].

Furthermore, it is instructive to compare the scattering spectra for the degenerate *Π* states, for nanojunction systems 3 and 4. These two systems contain identical numbers of silicon and carbon atoms; however, system 3 is an ordered configuration of Si-C pairs, whereas system 4 presents substitutional disorder of the atoms. It is seen that the disorder suppresses the conductance of the *Π*-state electrons at the Fermi level within the zero-bias limit. Another general observation can be made from the results for nanojunction system 5 which contains more silicon than carbon atoms. Despite the finite size of this system, which is comparable to system 4, and despite the structural symmetry of its atomic configuration, the electronic transmission is suppressed at the Fermi level within the zero-bias limit. This implies that one of the main observations of our paper is that structural symmetry on the nanojunction is not a guarantee for finite transmission in the case of the multivalence diatomic wire nanojunctions.

Figure 6 also shows that the transmission spectra for the *σ*^{∗} state are close to unity over a significant range of energies from approximately 1 to 7 eV for all of the five nanojunction systems. This result may prove useful for the electronic conductance across silicon-doped carbon nanojunctions under finite bias voltages.

*G*(

*E*) as a function of energy

*E*and in units of

*G*

_{0}=2

*e*

^{2}/h for the considered nanojunction systems of a given length as depicted in Figure 5 (red). Moreover, the perfect electronic conductance on the carbon leads (blue) is given in comparison and constitutes effectively the conductance of the infinite and perfect quasi one-dimensional carbon wire. In Figure 7, the Fermi level is indicated by the dashed line as a zero-reference energy, and

*G*(

*E*) is calculated from all the contributing eigenstates of Figure 6, including the two degenerate

*Π*states.

We note that the conclusions given for the results presented in Figure 6 are also followed by the more general representation of the electronic transport depicted in Figure 7. Furthermore, the results presented in Figure 7 confirm that only the electrons incident from the leads in the *Π* states are responsible for the electronic conductance at the zero-bias limit, which is readable from the Fermi level position. However, for all considered systems, the conductance at the Fermi level is theoretically limited to the value of 2 *G*_{0}, and the biggest conductance maxima close to the perfect infinite carbon wire value of 3 *G*_{0}can be observed only in the energy interval from approximately 1 to 7 eV hence for energies above the Fermi level. Once again, this follows our previous observations for the transmission results for the *Π* states concluded from Figure 6. Nonetheless, only on the basis of the results presented in Figure 7 can we note that due to the summation over all possible state contributions which constitute the *G*(*E*) spectra, not only the *σ*^{∗}-state electrons, but also some of those in the degenerate *Π* states contribute to the high conductance values in the cited energy intervals. This important observation proves that the *σ*^{∗}- and *Π*-state electrons are of crucial importance for both the zero-bias quantum conductance of the silicon-doped carbon wires and the possible finite bias ones. This implies that the use of only a single orbital for the description of the carbon atoms will result in an inadequate description of the transport processes across low-coordinated systems containing these atoms.

## Conclusions

In the present work, the unknown properties of the quantum electronic conductance for nanojunctions made of silicon-doped carbon wires between carbon leads are studied in depth. This is done using the phase field matching theory and the tight-binding method. The local basis for the electronic wave functions is assumed to be composed of four different atomic orbitals for silicon and carbon, namely the *s*, *p*_{
x
}, *p*_{
y
}, and *p*_{
z
}states.

In the first step, we calculate the electronic band structures for three nanomaterials, namely the one-dimensional infinite wires of silicon, carbon, and diatomic silicon carbide. This permits a matching comparison with the available corresponding DFT results, with the objective to select the optimal TB parameters for the three nanomaterials.

This optimal set of the tight-binding parameters is then used to calculate the electronic conductance across the silicon-doped carbon wire nanojunctions. Five different nanojunction cases are analyzed to sample their behavior under different atomic configurations. We show that despite the nonconducting character of the infinite silicon carbide wires, its finite implementation as nanojunctions exhibit a finite conductance. This outcome is explained by the energy difference between the binding energies of the silicon and carbon atoms, which correspond to an effective potential barrier for the degenerate *Π*-state electrons transmitted across the nanojunction under zero-bias field.

The conductance effects that may arise due to minimal substitutional disorder and to artificially organize symmetry considerations on the silicon carbide wire nanojunction are also investigated. By exchanging the positions of two silicon and carbon atoms on an initial nanojunction to generate a substitutional disorder, we show that the total quantum conductance is suppressed at the Fermi level. This is in sharp contrast with the finite and significant conductance for the initial atomically ordered nanojunction with periodic configurations of the silicon and carbon atoms. Also, the analysis of a silicon carbide nanojunction of a comparable size as the one above, presenting symmetry properties, shows that quantum conductance is suppressed at the Fermi level.

In summary, we note that the biggest maxima of the conductance spectra for the zero-bias limit can be observed for high energies for all of the considered systems. This conclusion reveals the fact that electrons incident from the leads in both *σ*^{∗}and *Π* states are crucial for the considerations of the electronic transport properties of the silicon-doped carbon wire nanojunctions.

## Appendix 1

### Explicit forms of the E^{i,j}and H^{i,j}matrices

Equations 22 and 23 denote *N*_{
x
}*N*_{
l
}square matrices, where matrix (Equation 23) is upper triangular. In this manner, component matrices (Equations 24 and 25) are of the dimension *N*_{
l
}×*N*_{
l
}. Additionally, matrix ${\epsilon}_{{i}^{\prime},{j}^{\prime}}$ always denotes diagonal matrix, while ${h}_{{i}^{\prime},{j}^{\prime}}$ matrix is much more complex, with possible nonzero elements at every position. Please note that some of the ${h}_{l,{l}^{\prime},m}^{n,{n}^{\prime},\beta}$ elements can vanish due to symmetry conditions and simplify the notation of the ${h}_{{i}^{\prime},{j}^{\prime}}$ matrix.

## Appendix 2

### Partitioning technique

The partitioning technique is a suitable method which allows to avoid the singularity problem of the H_{N,N−1} and ${H}_{N,N-1}^{\u2020}$ matrices and calculates only nontrivial solutions of Equation 10. Detailed discussion of the partitioning technique is presented in the work of Khomyakov and Brocks [71], and this section gives only our short remarks on this method.

*D*

_{1}−

*D*

_{2}and

*D*

_{2}sizes where

*N*

_{ n }stands for the order of nearest-neighbor interactions assumed in calculations, e.g.,

*N*

_{ n }=1 for the first nearest-neighbor interactions. On the basis of Equations 26 and 27, the reduced 2

*N*

_{ l }eigenvalue problem is written as follows:

Please note that the reduced problem of Equation 28 gives 2*N*_{
l
} eigenvalues with 2*N*_{
l
} corresponding eigenvectors; this *N*_{
x
}times less than can be expected from a physical point of view. Nevertheless, those solutions can be easily separated into *N*_{
x
}*N*_{
l
} eigenvalues and *N*_{
x
}*N*_{
l
}eigenvectors of a purely physical character.

## Appendix 3

### Explicit forms of the **M**_{i,j}, ${M}_{1}^{\mathrm{in}}$, and ${M}_{2}^{\mathrm{in}}$components

*matched*(

*D*+ 2)×(

*D*+ 2) square matrix M in Equation 16, for a given

*i*and

*j*indices, are given as follows:

## Appendix 4

### Group velocities

*v*denotes the eigenvalues of Equation 39 which yields all required electron group velocities for each propagating state. Further, V is the

*N*

_{ x }×

*N*

_{ l }size matrix of the following form:

Finally, v(R_{
N
},k) stands for eigenvectors of the problem of Equation 39. We note that, usually, Equation 40 includes the constant part *d*_{
β
}/h, where *h* is the Planck constant. However, for the purpose of electronic conductance calculations within the PFMT approach, this term can be omitted due to the fact that only the ratios of the given group velocities are important (please see Equations 17 and 18).

## Declarations

### Acknowledgements

D Szczȩśniak would like to thank the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs for his PhD scholarship grant CNOUS 2009-2374, to the Polish National Science Center for their research grant DEC-2011/01/N/ST3/04492, and to the Graduate School of Sciences at the University du Maine for their support.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Agraït N, Levy-Yeyati A, van Ruitenbeek JM: Quantum properties of atomic-sized conductors.
*Phys Rep*2003, 377: 81–279. 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00633-6View Article - Nitzan A, Ratner M: Electron transport in molecular wire junctions.
*Science*2003, 300: 1384–1389. 10.1126/science.1081572View Article - Wan CC, Mozos JL, Taraschi G, Wang J, Guo H: Quantum transport through atomic wires.
*Appl Phys Lett*1997, 71: 419–421. 10.1063/1.119328View Article - Geim AK, Novoselov KS: The rise of graphene.
*Nature Mater*2007, 6: 183–191.View Article - Kroto HW, Heath JR, O’Brien SC, Curl RF, Smalley RE: C60: buckminsterfullerene.
*Nature*1985, 318: 162–163. 10.1038/318162a0View Article - Iijima S, Ichihashi T: Single-shell carbon nanotubes of 1-nm diameter.
*Nature*1993, 363: 603–605. 10.1038/363603a0View Article - Euen PL: Nanotechnology: carbon-based electronics.
*Nature*1998, 393: 15–16. 10.1038/29874View Article - Heath JR, Zhang Q, O’Brien SC, Curl RF, Kroto HW, Smalley RE: The formation of long carbon chain molecules during laser vaporization of graphite.
*J Am Chem Soc*1987, 109: 359–363. 10.1021/ja00236a012View Article - Lagow RJ, Kampa JJ, Wei HC, Battle SL, Genge JW, Laude DA, Harper CJ, Bau R, Stevens RC, Haw JF, Munson E: Synthesis of linear acetylenic carbon: the “sp” carbon allotrope.
*Science*1995, 267: 362–367. 10.1126/science.267.5196.362View Article - Derycke V, Soukiassian P, Mayne A, Dujardin D, Gautier J: Carbon atomic chain formation on the β-SiC(100) surface by controlled sp→sp3 transformation.
*Phys Rev Lett*1998, 81: 5868–5871. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5868View Article - Troiani HE, Miki-Yoshida M, Camacho-Bragado GA, Marques MAL, Rubio A, Ascencio JA, Jose-Yacaman M: Direct observation of the mechanical properties of single-walled carbon nanotubes and their junctions at the atomic level.
*Nano Lett*2003, 3: 751–755. 10.1021/nl0341640View Article - Zhao X, Ando Y, Liu Y, Jinno M, Suzuki T: Carbon nanowire made of a long linear carbon chain inserted inside a multiwalled carbon nanotube.
*Phys Rev Lett*2003, 90: 187401.View Article - Yuzvinsky TD, Mickelson W, Aloni S, Begtrup GE, Kis A, Zettl A: Shrinking a carbon nanotube.
*Nano Lett*2006, 6: 2718–2722. 10.1021/nl061671jView Article - Jin C, Lan H, Peng L, Suenaga K, Iijima S: Deriving carbon atomic chains from graphene.
*Phys Rev Lett*2009, 102: 205501.View Article - Kértesz M, Koller J, Az̆man A: Ab initio Hartree-Fock crystal orbital studies. II. Energy bands of an infinite carbon chain.
*J Chem Phys*1978, 68: 2779–2782. 10.1063/1.436070View Article - Kértesz M, Koller J, Az̆man A: Different orbitals for different spins for solids: fully variational ab initio studies on hydrogen and carbon atomic chains, polyene, and poly(sulphur nitride).
*Phys Rev B*1979, 19: 2034–2040. 10.1103/PhysRevB.19.2034View Article - Karpfen A: Ab initio studies on polymers. I. The linear infinite polyyne.
*J Phys C Solid State Phys*1979, 12: 3227–3237. 10.1088/0022-3719/12/16/011View Article - Teramae M, Yamabe T, Imamura A: Ab initio effective core potential studies on polymers.
*Theor Chim Acta*1983, 64: 1–12.View Article - Springborg M: Self-consistent, first principles calculations of the electronic structures of a linear, infinite carbon chain.
*J Phys C*1986, 19: 4473–4482. 10.1088/0022-3719/19/23/010View Article - Rice MJ, Phillpot SR, Bishop AR, Campbell DK: Solitons, polarons, and phonons in the infinite polyyne chain.
*Phys Rev B*1986, 34: 4139–4149. 10.1103/PhysRevB.34.4139View Article - Springborg M, Dreschel SL, Málek J: Anharmonic model for polyyne.
*Phys Rev B*1990, 41: 11954–11966. 10.1103/PhysRevB.41.11954View Article - Watts JD, Bartlett RJ: A theoretical study of linear carbon cluster monoanions, C
_{n}^{−}and dianions, C_{n}^{2−}(n=2−10).*J Chem Phys*1992, 97: 3445–3457. 10.1063/1.462980View Article - Xu CH, Wang CZ, Chan CT, Ho KM: A transferable tight-binding potential for carbon.
*J Phys Condens Matter*1992, 4: 6047–6054. 10.1088/0953-8984/4/28/006View Article - Lou L, Nordlander P: Carbon atomic chains in strong electric fields.
*Phys Rev B*1996, 54: 16659–16662. 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.16659View Article - Jones RO, Seifert G: Density functional study of carbon clusters and their ions.
*Phys Rev Lett*1997, 79: 443–446. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.443View Article - Fuentealba P: Static dipole polarizabilities of small neutral carbon clusters C
_{n}(n ⩽ 8).*Phys Rev A*1998, 58: 4232–4234. 10.1103/PhysRevA.58.4232View Article - Abdurahman A, Shukla A, Dolg M: Ab initio many-body calculations of static dipole polarizabilities of linear carbon chains and chainlike boron clusters.
*Phys Rev B*2002, 65: 115106.View Article - Cahangirov S, Topsakal M, Ciraci S: Long-range interactions in carbon atomic chains.
*Phys Rev B*2010, 82: 195444.View Article - Tongay S, Ciraci S: Atomic strings of group IV, III-V, and II-VI elements.
*Appl Phys Lett*2004, 85: 6179–6181. 10.1063/1.1839647View Article - Bylaska EJ, Weare JH, Kawai R: Development of bond-length alternation in very large carbon rings: LDA pseudopotential results.
*Phys Rev B*1998, 58: R7488—R7491.View Article - Zhang Y, Su Y, Wang L, Kong ESW, Chen X, Zhang Y: A one-dimensional extremely covalent material: monatomic carbon linear chain.
*Nanoscale Res Lett*2011, 6: 577. 10.1186/1556-276X-6-577View Article - Lang ND, Avouris P: Oscillatory conductance of carbon-atom wires.
*Phys Rev Lett*1998, 81: 3515–3518. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3515View Article - Lang ND, Avouris P: Carbon-atom wires: charge-transfer doping, voltage drop, and the effect of distortions.
*Phys Rev Lett*2000, 84: 358–361. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.358View Article - Larade B, Taylor J, Mehrez H, Guo H: Conductance, I-V curves, and negative differential resistance of carbon atomic wires.
*Phys Rev B*2001, 64: 075420.View Article - Tongay S, Dag S, Durgun E, Senger RT, Ciraci S: Atomic and electronic structure of carbon strings.
*J Phys Cond Matter*2005, 17: 3823–3836. 10.1088/0953-8984/17/25/009View Article - Senger RT, Tongay S, Durgun E, Ciraci S: Atomic chains of group-IV elements and III-V and II-VI binary compounds studied by a first-principles pseudopotential method.
*Phys Rev B*2005, 72: 075419.View Article - Baranović G, Z̆ Crljen: Unusual conductance of polyyne-based molecular wires.
*Phys Rev Lett*2007, 98: 116801.View Article - Okano S, Tománek D: Effect of electron and hole doping on the structure of, C, Si, and S nanowires.
*Phys Rev B*2007, 75: 195409.View Article - Chen W, Andreev AV, Bertsch GF: Conductance of a single-atom carbon chain with graphene leads.
*Phys Rev B*2009, 80: 085410.View Article - Wang Y, Lin ZZ, Zhang W, Zhuang J, Ning XJ: Pulling long linear atomic chains from graphene: molecular dynamics simulations.
*Phys Rev B*2009, 80: 233403.View Article - Song B, Sanvito S, Fang H: Anomalous I-V curve for mono-atomic carbon chains.
*New J Phys*2010, 12: 103017. 10.1088/1367-2630/12/10/103017View Article - Zhang GP, Fang XW, Yao YX, Wang CZ, Ding ZJ, Ho KM: Electronic structure and transport of a carbon chain between graphene nanoribbon leads.
*J Phys Cond Matter*2011, 23: 025302. 10.1088/0953-8984/23/2/025302View Article - Ke Y, Xia K, Guo H: Disorder scattering in magnetic tunnel junctions: theory of nonequilibrium vertex correction.
*Phys Rev Lett*2008, 100: 166805.View Article - Nozaki D, Pastawski HM, Cuniberti G: Controlling the conductance of molecular wires by defect engineering.
*New J Phys*2010, 12: 063004. 10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/063004View Article - Strupiński W, Grodecki K, Wysmołek A, Stȩpniewski R, Szkopek T, Gaskell PE, Grüneis A, Haberer D, BoŻek R, Krupka J, Baranowski JM: Graphene epitaxy by chemical vapor deposition on SiC.
*Nano Lett*2011, 11: 1786–1791. 10.1021/nl200390eView Article - Wang F, Shepperd K, Hicks J, Nevius MS, Tinkey H, Tejeda A, Taleb-Ibrahimi A, Bertran F, Fèvre PL, Torrance DB, First PN, de Heer WA, Zakharov AA, Conrad EH: Silicon intercalation into the graphene-SiC interface.
*Phys Rev B*2012, 85: 165449.View Article - Landauer R: Spatial variation of currents and fields due to localized scatterers in metallic conduction.
*IBM J Res Dev*1957, 1: 223–231.View Article - Büttiker M: Four-terminal phase-coherent conductance.
*Phys Rev Lett*1986, 57: 1761–1764. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.1761View Article - Zwierzycki M, Xia K, Kelly PJ, Bauer GEW, Turek I: Spin injection through an Fe/InAs interface.
*Phys Rev B*2003, 67: 092401.View Article - Pauly F, Viljas JK, Huniar U, Häfner M, Wohlthat S, Bürkle M, Cuevas JC, Schön G: Cluster-based density-functional approach to quantum transport through molecular and atomic contacts.
*New J Phys*2008, 10: 125019. 10.1088/1367-2630/10/12/125019View Article - Caroli C, Combescot R, Nozières P, Saint-James D: Direct calculation of the tunneling currents.
*J Phys C*1971, 8: 916–929.View Article - Deretzis I, Magna AL: Coherent electron transport in quasi one-dimensional carbon-based systems.
*Eur Phys J B*2011, 81: 15. 10.1140/epjb/e2011-20134-xView Article - Khater A, Szczȩśniak D: A simple analytical model for electronic conductance in a one dimensional atomic chain across a defect.
*J Phys Conf Ser*2011, 289: 012013.View Article - Szczȩśniak D, Khater A: Electronic conductance via atomic wires: a phase field matching theory approach.
*Eur Phys J B*2012, 85: 174.View Article - Khater A, Bourahla B, Abou Ghantous M, Tigrine R, Chadli R: Magnons coherent transmission and heat transport at ultrathin insulating ferromagnetic nanojunctions.
*Eur Phys J B*2011, 82: 53–61. 10.1140/epjb/e2011-10935-2View Article - Khater A, Belhadi M, Abou Ghantous M: Phonons heat transport at an atomic well boundary in ultrathin solid films.
*Eur Phys J B*2011, 80: 363–369. 10.1140/epjb/e2011-10892-8View Article - Tigrine R, Khater A, Bourahla B, Abou Ghantous M, Rafli O: Magnon scattering by a symmetric atomic well in free standing very thin magnetic films.
*Eur Phys J B*2008, 62: 59–64. 10.1140/epjb/e2008-00125-xView Article - Virlouvet A, Khater A, Aouchiche H, Rafli O, Maschke K: Scattering of vibrational waves in perturbed two-dimensional multichannel asymmetric waveguides as on an isolated step.
*Phys Rev B*1999, 59: 4933–4942. 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.4933View Article - Fellay A, Gagel F, Maschke K, Virlouvet A, Khater A: Scattering of vibrational waves in perturbed quasi-one-dimensional multichannel waveguides.
*Phys Rev B*1997, 55: 1707–1717. 10.1103/PhysRevB.55.1707View Article - Mardaani M, Rabani H, Esmaeili A: An analytical study on electronic density of states and conductance of typical nanowires.
*Solid State Commun*2011, 151: 928–932. 10.1016/j.ssc.2011.04.010View Article - Rabani H, Mardaani M: Exact analytical results on electronic transport of conjugated polymer junctions: renormalization method.
*Solid State Commun*2012, 152: 235–239. 10.1016/j.ssc.2011.09.026View Article - Wu Y, Childs PA: Conductance of graphene nanoribbon junctions and the tight binding model.
*Nanoscale Res Lett*2011, 6: 62. - Chen J, Yang L, Yang H, Dong J: Electronic and transport properties of a carbon-atom chain in the core of semiconducting carbon nanotubes.
*Phys Lett A*2003, 316: 101–106. 10.1016/S0375-9601(03)01132-0View Article - Hands ID, Dunn JL, Bates CA: Visualization of static Jahn-Teller effects in the fullerene anion C
_{60}^{−}.*Phys Rev B*2010, 82: 155425.View Article - Delga A, Lagoute J, Repain V, Chacon C, Girard Y, Marathe M, Narasimhan S, Rousset S: Electronic properties of Fe clusters on a Au(111) surface.
*Phys Rev B*2011, 84: 035416.View Article - Slater JC, Koster GF: Simplified LCAO method for the periodic potential problem.
*Phys Rev*1954, 94: 1498–1524. 10.1103/PhysRev.94.1498View Article - Harrison WA:
*Elementary Electronic Structure*. Singapore: World Scientific; 2004.View Article - Zhang L, Wang JS, Li B: Ballistic magnetothermal transport in a Heisenberg spin chain at low temperatures.
*Phys Rev B*2008, 78: 144416.View Article - Bekaroglu E, Topsakal M, Cahangirov S, Ciraci S: First-principles study of defects and adatoms in silicon carbide honeycomb structures.
*Phys Rev B*2010, 81: 075433.View Article - Kaxiras E:
*Atomic and Electronic Structure of Solid*. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2003.View Article - Khomyakov PA, Brocks G: Real-space finite-difference method for conductance calculations.
*Phys Rev B*2004, 70: 195402.View Article

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.