Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:27:32.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Computer Simulations of Semiconductor Thin Film Growth and Strain Relaxation in a Unified Atomistic and Kinetic Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

A. Madhukar ,
W. Yu ,
R. Viswanathan  and
P. Chen
A. Madhukar
Affiliation:
Photonic Materials and Devices Laboratory, Departments of Materials Science and Physics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0241, USA.
W. Yu
Affiliation:
Photonic Materials and Devices Laboratory, Departments of Materials Science and Physics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0241, USA.
R. Viswanathan
Affiliation:
Photonic Materials and Devices Laboratory, Departments of Materials Science and Physics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0241, USA.
P. Chen
Affiliation:
Photonic Materials and Devices Laboratory, Departments of Materials Science and Physics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0241, USA.
Get access

Abstract

An overview is provided of an evolving atomistic and kinetic model of semiconductor growth that unifies the main features of strain relaxation in low and high lattice misfit heteroepitaxy. The model reveals a kinetic pathway for dislocation formation during growth with little or no energy cost at low misfits, thus providing a way out of the longstanding dilemma of too high dislocation nucleation energies predicted by classical theories of the equilibrium behaviour of a fixed number of particles at low misfits. The essential kinetic processes underlying the model are identified on the basis of comparison of the predictions of kinetic Monte-Carlo simulations of growth with real-time or in-situ data obtained in such experiments as reflection high-energy electron diffraction (RHEED) and scanning probe microscopy (SPM). Relative significance of these atomistic kinetic processes is shown to naturally lead to strain relaxation via defect initiation at low misfits while maintaining smooth surface morphology or at high misfits change to 3-dimensional morphology while initially maintaining coherence. The potential role of steps in providing sources for defect formation is examined through molecular dynamics simulations of Ge overlayers on Si (001) stepped surfaces.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 408: Symposium P – Materials Theory, Simulations, and Parallel Algorithms , 1995 , 413
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1996

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. See, for example, Madhukar, A., Thin Solid Films 231, p. 8 (1993).Google Scholar
2. See, for example, Strained Layer Superlattices, edited by T., Pearsall, Academic Press, New York, Vols. I and 2 (1990).Google Scholar
3. See, for example, Epitaxical Growth, edited by J.W., Matthews, Academic Press, New York, Vols. A and B (1975).Google Scholar
4. Srolovitz, D.J., Acta Metall. 37, p. 621 (1989).Google Scholar
5. Ghaisas, S.V. and Madhukar, A., J. Vac. Sc. Technol. B 3, p. 540 (1985); A. Madhukar and S.V. Ghaisas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, p. 1066 (1986).Google Scholar
6. Arthur, J.R., Surf. Sc. 43, p. 449 (1974); J. Appl. Phys. 37, p. 3057 (1966); 39, p. 4032 (1968).Google Scholar
7. Foxon, C.T. and Joyce, B.A., Surf. Sc. 50, p. 434 (1975); 64, p. 293 (1977).Google Scholar
8. For a review of the CDRI model based results until 1987, see Madhukar, A. and Ghaisas, S.V., CRC Critical Review in Solid State and Materials Sciences 14, p. 1 (1988).Google Scholar
9. Ghaisas, S.V. and Madhukar, A., Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrument. Engr. (SPIE) 944, p. 16 (1988); S.V. Ghaisas and A. Madhukar, J. Vac. Sc. Technol. B7, p. 264 (1989).Google Scholar
10. Ghaisas, S.V. and Madhukar, A., J. Appl. Phys. 65, p. 1888 (1989).Google Scholar
11. Ogale, S.B. and Madhukar, A., App. Phys. Lett. 52, p. 723 (1988).Google Scholar
12. Madhukar, A. and Ghaisas, S.V., Appl. Phys. Lett. 47, p. 247 (1985).Google Scholar
13. Lewis, B.F., Lee, T.C., Grunthaner, F.J., Madhukar, A., Fernandez, R. and Maserjian, J., J. Vac. Sc. Technol. B 2, p. 419 (1984).Google Scholar
14. Evans, K.R., Stutz, C.E., Lorance, D.K., and Jones, R.L., J. Vac. Sc. Technol. B 7, p. 259 (1989).Google Scholar
15. Grandjean, N., Massies, J., and Etgens, V.H., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, p. 796 (1992).Google Scholar
16. Guha, S., Madhukar, A., and Rajkumar, K.C., Appl. Phys. Let. 57, p. 2110 (1990); S. Guha, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California, 1991.Google Scholar
17. LeGoues, F., Reuter, M.C., Tersoff, J., Hammar, M., and Tromp, R.M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, p.3447 (1994).Google Scholar
18. Kobayashi, N. et al., To be published.Google Scholar
19. , Djafari-Rouhani et al., Pre-Print (1990).Google Scholar
20. Perovic, D.D. and Houghton, D.C., MRS Proc., 263, p. 391 (1992).Google Scholar
21. Roland, C. and Gilmer, G., Phys. Rev.B 47, p. 16286 (1993).Google Scholar