1992
DOI: 10.1016/0022-0248(92)90341-f
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of growth temperature on plastic relaxation of In0.2Ga0.8As surface layers on GaAs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2004
2004

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This model explains well the asymmetric morphology observed in the InGaAs-on-GaAs heteroepitaxy. [5][6][7][8] It can be also explained by this model how grown surfaces show symmetric morphology in SiGe-on-Si heteroepitaxy, [9][10][11][12] since SiGe has only one-type step.…”
Section: Evolution Process Of Cross-hatch Patterns and Reduction Omentioning
confidence: 90%
“…This model explains well the asymmetric morphology observed in the InGaAs-on-GaAs heteroepitaxy. [5][6][7][8] It can be also explained by this model how grown surfaces show symmetric morphology in SiGe-on-Si heteroepitaxy, [9][10][11][12] since SiGe has only one-type step.…”
Section: Evolution Process Of Cross-hatch Patterns and Reduction Omentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Sample S21 has been grown to test the validity of this design scheme. [6][7][8][9][10] As expected, ͑1͒ the top layer is not completely unstrained when an equilibrium situation is assumed, and ͑2͒ the relaxation percentage increases as the top layer composition is closer to the predicted average composition value of x mt1 ϭ21.2. The mean strain relaxation data of the top layers, obtained by DCXRD, are shown in Table II.…”
mentioning
confidence: 77%
“…[6][7][8][9][10] The equilibrium dislocation distribution predicted for a linearly graded composition layer is just enough to exactly cancel the mismatch up to a distance ͑z c equ ͒ from the interface and there are no dislocations at all above z c equ 5 For each sample four ͑004͒ rocking curves were recorded where the projections in the ͑001͒ plane of the incident and diffracted beams lie along the four ͗110͘ directions.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These include: ͑i͒ growth rate variations due to impurity concentration differences at the dislocation lines; 31 ͑ii͒ local growth rate differences due to the dislocation-related stress field; 32-35 ͑iii͒ slip-related surface steps caused by dislocation half loops; 22,28,36 ͑iv͒ enhanced growth rate at sliprelated surface steps. 37 A growth rate modulation due to impurities seems unlikely, since cross-hatched surfaces were observed for differ-ent heterostructures grown with different techniques, including MBE-grown In x Ga 1Ϫx As/GaAs and Si-Ge, 36 where unintentional impurity incorporation levels are below 10 14 cm Ϫ3 . The information about the extended defect type and density in Figs.…”
Section: Fig 4 ͑A͒mentioning
confidence: 99%