4.5 Article

Generalized High-Energy Thermionic Electron Injection at Graphene Interface

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW APPLIED
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.014057

关键词

-

资金

  1. A*STAR AME IRG [A1783c0011]
  2. AFOSR AOARD [FA2386-17-1-4020]
  3. SUTD Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Graphene thermionic electron emission across a high interface barrier involves energetic electrons residing far away from the Dirac point, where the Dirac cone approximation of the band structure breaks down. Here, we construct a full-band model beyond the simple Dirac cone approximation for the thermionic injection of high-energy electrons in graphene. We show that the thermionic emission model based on the Dirac cone approximation is valid only in the graphene-semiconductor Schottky interface operating near room temperature, but breaks down in the cases involving high-energy electrons, such as the graphene-vacuum interface or heterojunction in the presence of photon absorption, where the full-band model is required to account for the band structure nonlinearity at high electron energy. We identify a critical bar- rier height, Phi((c))(B) approximate to 3.5 eV, beyond which the Dirac cone approximation crosses over from underestimation to overestimation. In the high-temperature thermionic emission regime at the graphene-vacuum interface, the Dirac cone approximation severely overestimates the electrical and heat current densities by more than 50% compared to the more accurate full-band model. The large discrepancies between the two models are demonstrated using a graphene-based thermionic cooler. These findings reveal the fallacy of Dirac cone approximation in the thermionic injection of high-energy electrons in graphene. The full-band model developed here can be readily generalized to other 2D materials and provides an improved theoretical avenue for the accurate analysis, modeling, and design of graphene-based thermionic energy devices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据