2009
DOI: 10.1002/pssc.200881194
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Twinning in Cu(In,Ga)S2

Abstract: Epitaxial thin films of CuIn1‐xGaxS2 (0 ≤ x ≤ 1) were grown on single‐crystalline (111)cub‐oriented silicon substrates by means of molecular beam epitaxy from elemental sources. Employing reflection high energy electron diffraction and Rutherford backscattering spectroscopy the twinning characteristics and the composition of the films were determined, respectively. X‐ray diffraction measurements in transmission geometry were performed to determine the lattice mismatch to the substrate. The degree of twinning o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 17 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…%) in our films, here it is most probably caused by twin stacking faults originating from the (112) diffraction peak. Oishi et al 17 and Cieslak et al 18 reported {112} twins in the Cu(In, Ga)S 2 films on Si(100) and Si(111), respectively. Rodriguez-Alvarez et al 19 also reported a signature that does not correspond to the ideal chalcopyrite structure of CIGSe and attributed this to stacking faults within the bulk of the films by modeling diffraction patterns of faulted CIGSe with the software DIFFaX.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…%) in our films, here it is most probably caused by twin stacking faults originating from the (112) diffraction peak. Oishi et al 17 and Cieslak et al 18 reported {112} twins in the Cu(In, Ga)S 2 films on Si(100) and Si(111), respectively. Rodriguez-Alvarez et al 19 also reported a signature that does not correspond to the ideal chalcopyrite structure of CIGSe and attributed this to stacking faults within the bulk of the films by modeling diffraction patterns of faulted CIGSe with the software DIFFaX.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%