View in EDS

Equilibrium Lattice Relaxation and Misfit Dislocations in Continuously- and Step-Graded InxGa1-xAs/GaAs (001) and GaAs1-yPy/GaAs (001) Metamorphic Buffer Layers.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Equilibrium Lattice Relaxation and Misfit Dislocations in Continuously- and Step-Graded InxGa1-xAs/GaAs (001) and GaAs1-yPy/GaAs (001) Metamorphic Buffer Layers.
Authors: Kujofsa, Tedi1, Ayers, John E.1
Source: International Journal of High Speed Electronics & Systems. Sep-Dec2015, Vol. 24 Issue 3/4, p-1. 8p.
Subjects: Equilibrium, Performance of electronics, Optical devices, Gallium arsenide, Substrates (Materials science)
Abstract: The inclusion of metamorphic buffer layers (MBL) in the design of lattice-mismatched semiconductor heterostructures is important in enhancing reliability and performance of optical and electronic devices. These metamorphic buffer layers usually employ linear grading of composition, and materials including InxGa1-xAs and GaAs1-yPy have been used. Non-uniform and continuously graded profiles are beneficial for the design of partially-relaxed buffer layers because they reduce the threading dislocation density by allowing the distribution of the misfit dislocations throughout the metamorphic buffer layer, rather than concentrating them at the interface where substrate defects and tangling can pin dislocations or otherwise reduce their mobility as in the case of uniform compositional growth. In this work we considered heterostructures involving a linearly-graded (type A) or step-graded (type B) buffer layer grown on a GaAs (001) substrate. For each structure type we present minimum energy calculations and compare the cases of cation (Group III) and anion (Group V) grading. In addition, we studied the (i) average and surface in-plane strain and (ii) average misfit dislocation density for heterostructures with various thickness and compositional profile. Moreover, we show that differences in the elastic stiffness constants give rise to significantly different behavior in these two commonly-used buffer layer systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of International Journal of High Speed Electronics & Systems is the property of World Scientific Publishing Company and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:The inclusion of metamorphic buffer layers (MBL) in the design of lattice-mismatched semiconductor heterostructures is important in enhancing reliability and performance of optical and electronic devices. These metamorphic buffer layers usually employ linear grading of composition, and materials including InxGa1-xAs and GaAs1-yPy have been used. Non-uniform and continuously graded profiles are beneficial for the design of partially-relaxed buffer layers because they reduce the threading dislocation density by allowing the distribution of the misfit dislocations throughout the metamorphic buffer layer, rather than concentrating them at the interface where substrate defects and tangling can pin dislocations or otherwise reduce their mobility as in the case of uniform compositional growth. In this work we considered heterostructures involving a linearly-graded (type A) or step-graded (type B) buffer layer grown on a GaAs (001) substrate. For each structure type we present minimum energy calculations and compare the cases of cation (Group III) and anion (Group V) grading. In addition, we studied the (i) average and surface in-plane strain and (ii) average misfit dislocation density for heterostructures with various thickness and compositional profile. Moreover, we show that differences in the elastic stiffness constants give rise to significantly different behavior in these two commonly-used buffer layer systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:01291564
DOI:10.1142/S0129156415200098