2016
DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/49/13/135308
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative x-ray diffraction analysis of bimodal damage distributions in Tm implanted Al0.15Ga0.85N

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
22
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
3
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, after each processing stage, there are no visible Q x shift of the Al x Ga 1-x N and GaN peak position, which indicates that implantation does not introduce notable strain along the a-axis of the crystal lattice. It is in agreement with previous reports [8,[22][23][24]. The high-temperature annealing resulted in a remarkable lattice recovery; however, some residual с-lattice extension is still observed in both the GaN and Al x Ga 1-x N layers ( Fig.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Also, after each processing stage, there are no visible Q x shift of the Al x Ga 1-x N and GaN peak position, which indicates that implantation does not introduce notable strain along the a-axis of the crystal lattice. It is in agreement with previous reports [8,[22][23][24]. The high-temperature annealing resulted in a remarkable lattice recovery; however, some residual с-lattice extension is still observed in both the GaN and Al x Ga 1-x N layers ( Fig.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…This saturation was attributed to the formation of a dense network of extended defects leading to plastic deformation and strain relaxation. Many authors have reported similar strain formation in GaN for different implantation conditions 42,43,44 . In fact, it was suggested that strain induced by implantation defects is the driving force behind the defect mobility and dynamic annealing in GaN leading to the change of defect microstructure as the fluence increases 45 .…”
Section: Strain and Morphologymentioning
confidence: 81%
“…41 The calculation of diffracted intensities uses the Takagi-Taupin differential equations solved by the recursion formula of Bartels. [41][42][43] The attenuation static Debye-Waller (DW) factor is introduced in the static structure factor calculations to account for the decrease of the reflected amplitude associated with mean atomic displacements, hu 2 i 1/2 . According to Sousbie et al, 44 the mean atomic displacement is assumed to be proportional to the perpendicular deformation, and hence, a measure for the crystal implantation damage is extracted via the a parameter.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%