Skip to content

STEM Simulation

Simulates scanning transmission electron microscopy images using the Bloch-wave method.


Overview

A convergent electron beam is scanned across the specimen. Transmitted and scattered electrons are collected by annular detectors. ReciPro computes both elastic and thermal diffuse scattering (TDS) contributions.


Computational cost

Factor Impact
Convergence angle Larger → more CBED disk overlap → higher cost
Bloch waves Eigenvalue problem scales as N³
Angular resolution Finer → more accurate but cost scales as N²
Image pixels Linear scaling

Detector types

Detector Angle range Main contribution Contrast
BF 0 – convergence angle Elastic Phase contrast
ABF Inner part of convergence angle Elastic Light-element sensitive
LAADF Just outside convergence angle Elastic + TDS Strain sensitive
HAADF Well outside convergence angle TDS (inelastic) Z-contrast (~Z²)

STEM-specific parameters

Parameter Description Typical
Convergence angle Beam semiangle (mrad) 15–25
Detector inner/outer angle Annular detector range (mrad) BF: 0/15, HAADF: 50–80/200
Effective source size FWHM (pm) 50–100
Slice thickness For TDS calculation (nm)
Angular resolution Angular step (mrad) 1–3

Display modes

Elastic only / TDS only / Both


Temperature factor

Important: For HAADF-STEM, atoms must have a non-zero isotropic temperature factor (Debye-Waller factor). If unknown, set B = 0.5 Ų. Zero B gives zero TDS intensity.


Comparison with Dr. Probe

ReciPro's STEM simulations have been confirmed to agree closely with the widely used Dr. Probe GUI (v1.10). The figure below compares the two for BF, ABF, LAADF and HAADF detectors over a thickness series (2.96–60.05 nm), both aberration-free (left) and with Cs = 0.2 mm, defocus = −25.9 nm (right). The two codes agree across all detector types and thicknesses.

STEM simulation comparison: Dr. Probe vs ReciPro

A more detailed report is available as a PDF: Comparison of STEM simulations by Dr. Probe GUI (v1.10) and ReciPro (v4.854).


See also