Support

Support Options

Submit a Support Ticket

 

Questions and Answers

0 Like

Lachlan Black

Input file syntax for Schred V2

I have downloaded and compiled the source code for versions 1 and 2 of Schred. However, I am having trouble finding information on the input file syntax for version 2. The Schred_201_Tutorial.pdf file, while nominally for version 2.1, in fact gives the input syntax for version 1 (and even then it does not document the meaning of the arguments following the “material” token). I can guess the meaning of most of the parameters in the default V2 input file that came with the source code, but it appears to be set up for a GaAs substrate, and I do not know what band structure parameters should be used for silicon. It would be great if you could include an example input file for silicon, and ideally provide fuller documentation of the input syntax. On a related note, is there any advantage to using V2 over V1 if only Si substrates are needed?

Report abuse

Chosen Answer

  1. 0 Like 0 Dislike

    Gokula Kannan

    I have attached the sample deck for Si,GaAs,strained Si. The ‘input.file’ is the input deck for the source code.The main difference between V2.0 and V1.0 is that, the former can calculate the transport,width and confinement masses needed for the Schrodinger and Poisson solver from the principal effective masses and the crystallographic directions in silicon. Additionally, you can use V2.0 to model any material whose conduction band model is represented with three significant valleys,strained silicon (by stating the offset between the CB valleys) and it is also capable of modeling a MOS capacitor with High-K Dielectric.

    Reply Report abuse

    Please login to answer the question.

0 Responses

No other responses made.

nanoHUB.org, a resource for nanoscience and nanotechnology, is supported by the National Science Foundation and other funding agencies. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.