1991
DOI: 10.1080/01418619108205584
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A quantitative analysis of strong-beam α fringes from {110} antiphase boundaries in GaAs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From the above results, it is confirmed that the observed (011) boundaries are of antiphase character and the fringes are of the δ type originating from the unique displacement vector of the (011) antiphase boundary of GaAs caused by different lengths of Ga-Ga and As-As bonds. [31][32][33] In addition to the artificial (011) antiphase boundaries discussed above, we found unintentionally formed antiphase boundaries on the Ge interlayers. In our previous studies, 15,17) we investigated the self-annihilating antiphase domains observed by [011]-zone axis DF TEM, in which rather regular (base lengths of the domains were typically 50 nm) antiphase domains were formed as a result of intentionally introduced misorientation causing regular single-atomic-height steps.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 48%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…From the above results, it is confirmed that the observed (011) boundaries are of antiphase character and the fringes are of the δ type originating from the unique displacement vector of the (011) antiphase boundary of GaAs caused by different lengths of Ga-Ga and As-As bonds. [31][32][33] In addition to the artificial (011) antiphase boundaries discussed above, we found unintentionally formed antiphase boundaries on the Ge interlayers. In our previous studies, 15,17) we investigated the self-annihilating antiphase domains observed by [011]-zone axis DF TEM, in which rather regular (base lengths of the domains were typically 50 nm) antiphase domains were formed as a result of intentionally introduced misorientation causing regular single-atomic-height steps.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 48%
“…From the above results, it is confirmed that the observed (011) boundaries are of antiphase character and the fringes are of the δ type originating from the unique displacement vector of the (011) antiphase boundary of GaAs caused by different lengths of Ga-Ga and As-As bonds. [31][32][33] In addition to the artificial (011) antiphase boundaries discussed above, we found unintentionally formed antiphase boundaries on the Ge interlayers. Figure 6 inverted (left) and noninverted (right) domains.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…cation–anion bonds) (Holt, 1969). These properties may include high energies of formation (Van Vechten, 1975; Kraut & Harrison, 1984; Petroff, 1986), dissimilar bond lengths (Rasmussen et al ., 1991a) and uncompensated localized charge (Lambrecht et al ., 1992). In compound semiconductors, antisite bonds are expected to be present along all high‐order grain boundaries with the exception of the Σ = 3 {111} orthotwin boundary.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…APBs have been studied in a number of different compound semiconductor crystals, including GaAs (Neave et al ., 1983; Cho et al ., 1985; Liliental‐Weber et al ., 1989; Rasmussen et al ., 1989, 1991a,b; Ueda et al ., 1989; McKernan et al ., 1991), SiC (Rasmussen et al ., 1989; Pirouz et al ., 1987a,b; Cheng et al ., 1989) and GaP (Morizane, 1977; Soga et al ., 1993; Samavedam et al ., 1995; Cohen & Carter, 1997). Experimental observations have shown that they may facet parallel to different crystallographic planes or they may be curved.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation