Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:05:21.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optical Properties of Pseudomorphic SnXGe1−x Alloys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Regina Ragan  and
Harry A. Atwater
Regina Ragan
Affiliation:
Thomas J. Watson Laboratory of Applied Physics, California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125, [email protected]
Harry A. Atwater
Affiliation:
Thomas J. Watson Laboratory of Applied Physics, California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

SnxGe1−x alloys are grown coherent on Ge(001) substrates by conventional molecular beam epitaxy. The lattice mismatch between SnxGe1−x and Ge produces a biaxial compression of the alloy in the plane of the substrate and a uniaxial elongation in the growth direction. The change of Eg resulting from the biaxial compression is modeled with deformation potential theory for coherent SnxGe1−x on Ge(001) and coherent SnxGe1−x on Ge(111). For SnxGe1−x on Ge(001), the decrease in the energy band gap due to strain is small, 16 meV for x = 0.10, and Γ7 and L6 shift uniformly. In the case of SnxGe1−x on Ge(111), Γ7 and L6 do not shift uniformly; a large uniaxial splitting occurs at L6, 200 meV for x = 0.10. Another interesting result of a uniaxial strain along [111] is the absence of a direct to indirect energy band gap transition for x < 0.30. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy transmission measurements of coherent SnxGe1−x on Ge(001) confirm the strain-induced change in the energy band gap is a small effect.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 588: Symposium P – Optical Microstructural Characterization of Semiconductors , 1999 , 199
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. He, G. and Atwater, H. A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79,1937 (1997).Google Scholar
2. Jenkins, D.W. and Dow, J.D., Phys. Rev. B 36, 7994(1987).Google Scholar
3. Wegscheider, W. et. al., J. Cryst. Growth 123, 75(1992).Google Scholar
4. Ragan, R. and Atwater, H.A., to be publishedGoogle Scholar
5. Bardeen, J. and Shockley, W., Phys. Rev. 80, 72(1950)Google Scholar
6. People, R., Phys. Rev. 32, 1405(1985).Google Scholar
7. Kleiner, W. H. and Roth, L.M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 2, 334(1959).Google Scholar
8. Hasegawa, H., Phys. Rev. 129, 1029(1963).Google Scholar
9. Pollak, F.H. and Cardona, M., Phys. Rev. 172, 816(1968)Google Scholar
10. Herring, C. and Voigt, E., Phys. Rev. 101, 944(1956).Google Scholar
11. Kang, N.L., Ryu, J.Y., and Choi, S.D., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 2439(1998).Google Scholar
12. Pikus, G.E. and Bir, G.L., Fiz. Tverd. Tela 1, 1642(1959) [Sov. Phys. Solid State 1, 1502 (1960)].Google Scholar