The existence and extent of quantum size effects in simple metal ultrathin films are studied by a systematic local-density, all-electron, full-potential calculation of the cohesive properties of {ν} layers of hexagonal Li, with {ν}=1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. By {ν}=5, there is clear convergence of the a lattice parameter (intraplanar bond length) to very nearly the calculated crystalline value, with a distinction between the two films with a meaningful interior (a=5.68±{}0.01 a.u. for {ν}=4 and 5) and those with a minimal interior or none at all ({ν}=3 and {ν}=1 and 2, respectively; a=5.75_-0.01+0.02 a.u.). Equally clear stability of the interplanar spacings occurs at distinctly noncrystalline values (4.27 a.u. for {ν}=2; 4.38±{}0.01 a.u. for the inner spacing of {ν}=3, 4, and 5 versus 4.64 a.u. for the crystalline calculation). The cohesive energies of the 3, 4, and 5 layers are closely clumped at about 87% of the crystalline value. As the 2 and 1 layers are substantially less bound, both the cohesive properties and the inner interplanar spacing suggest a different grouping than suggested by the a lattice parameter. Rough extrapolation of the slowly increasing cohesion with {ν} suggests that {ν}{}20 would be needed to achieve even 90% of the crystalline cohesive energy.The calculated surface energies do not exhibit any strong size effect, in striking contrast to Al films. The equilibrium intraplanar force constant a²E/da² has a minimum at {ν}=3, with its maximum at {ν}=5 almost 2.5 times larger. The calculated work functions give only a hint, at the very most, of the quantum size oscillations predicted from jellium models. A significant quantum size effect occurs, however, in the occupied portion of the density of states, which exhibits a step-function increase for each integer increase in {ν}. The density of states at EF has a maximum at {ν}=3 with a variation over the series of about 10%. The unrelaxed films do not exhibit a stronger quantum size effect than the equilibrium films, again with the barely possible exception of the work function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boettger et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: