Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:21:53.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Study of Substrate Orientation Dependence of the Solid-Phase Epitaxial Growth of Amorphised GaAs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

K. B. Belay ,
D. J. Llewellyn  and
M. C. Ridgway
K. B. Belay
Affiliation:
Department of Electronic Materials Engineering, Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, The Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia, [email protected]
D. J. Llewellyn
Affiliation:
Electron Microscopy Unit, Research School of Biological Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia
M. C. Ridgway
Affiliation:
Department of Electronic Materials Engineering, Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, The Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In-situ transmission electron microscopy (TEM) has been utilized in conjunction with conventional ex-situ Rutherford backscattering spectrometry and channeling (RBS/C), in-situ time resolved reflectivity (TRR) and ex-situ TEM to study the influence of substrate orientation on the solid-phase epitaxial growth (SPEG) of amorphised GaAs. A thin amorphous layer was produced on semi-insulating (100), (110) and (111) GaAs substrates by ion implantation of 190 and 200 keV Ga and As ions, respectively, to a total dose of 1e14/cm2. During implantation, substrates were maintained at liquid nitrogen temperature. In-situ annealing at ∼260°C was performed in the electron microscope and the data obtained was quantitatively analysed. It has been demonstrated that the non-planarity of the crystalline-amorphous (c/a)-interface was greatest for the (111) substrate orientation and least for the (110) substrate orientation. The roughness was measured in terms of the length of the a/c-interface in given window as a function of depth on a frame captured from the recorded video of the in-situ TEM experiments. The roughness of the c/a-interface was determined by the size of the angle subtended by the microtwins with respect to the interface on ex-situ TEM cross-sectional micrographs. The angle was both calculated and measured and was the largest in the case of (111) plane. The twinned fraction as a function of orientation, was calculated in terms of the disorder measured from the RBS/C and it was greatest for the (111) orientation.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 523: Symposium U – Electron Microscopy of Semiconducting Materials & ULSI Devices , 1998 , 201
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1998

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] Csepregi, L., Kennedy, E.F., Mayer, J.W. and Sigmon, T. W., J. Appl. Phys. 49, 3906 (1978).10.1063/1.325397Google Scholar
[2] Claverie, A., Namavar, F., Liliental-Weber, Z., Dreszer, P. and Weber, E. R., Mat. Sci. Eng. B22, 37 (1993).10.1016/0921-5107(93)90220-HGoogle Scholar
[3] Sigmon, T. W. and Parker, M. A., Nucl. Instrum. Methods B37–38, 280 (1989).10.1016/0168-583X(89)90186-9Google Scholar
[4] Locoppe, C., Nissim, Y. I. and Henoc, P., Appl. Phys. Lett. 48, 1441 (1986).10.1063/1.96883Google Scholar
[5] Belay, K. B., Llewellyn, D. J. and Ridgway, M. C., Appl. Phys. Lett. 69, 2255 (1996).10.1063/1.117145Google Scholar
[6] Llewellyn, D. J., Belay, K. B. and Ridgway, M. C., in Specimen Preparation for Transmission Electron Microscopy of Materials IV, edited by Anderson, R. M. and Walck, S. D. (Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol. 480 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1997) p. 257.Google Scholar
[7] Belay, K. B., Llewellyn, D. J. and Ridgway, M. C., in Compound Semiconductor Electronics and Photonics, edited by Shul, R. J., Pearton, S. J., Ren, F. and Wu, C. S. (Mat. Res. Soc., Symp. Proc. Vol. 421 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1996) p. 221, and references therein.Google Scholar
[8] Licoppe, C., Nissim, Y. I., Krauz, P. and Henoc, P., Appl. Phys. Lett. 49, 316 (1986).10.1063/1.97154Google Scholar
[9] Drosd, R. and Washburn, J., J. Appl. Phys., 53, 397 (1982).10.1063/1.329901Google Scholar
[10] Feldman, L. C., Mayer, J. W. and Picraux, S. T., Materials Analysis by Ion Channeling Submicron Crystallography (Academic Press, New York 1982) p. 88, and references therein.10.1016/B978-0-12-252680-0.50011-5Google Scholar
[11] Williams, D. B. and Carter, C. B., Transmission electron microscopy: Diffraction II, (Plenum Press, New York, 1996) p. 269.10.1007/978-1-4757-2519-3Google Scholar
[12] Phillipp, F., Hoschen, R., Osaki, M., Mobus, G. and Ruhle, M., Ultramicroscopy 56, 1 (1994).Google Scholar