Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:25:08.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of interfacial strain on shape and composition of MOCVD grown III-Nitride nanostructures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Vibhu Jindal ,
James Grandusky ,
Neeraj Tripathi ,
Mihir Tungare  and
Fatemeh Shahedipour-Sandvik
Vibhu Jindal
Affiliation:
[email protected], College of Nanoscale Science and ENgineering, Nanotechnology, 255 Fuller Road, University at Albany, Albany, NY, 12203, United States
James Grandusky
Affiliation:
[email protected], College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, 255 Fuller Road, University at Albany, Albany, NY, 12203, United States
Neeraj Tripathi
Affiliation:
[email protected], College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, 255 Fuller Road, University at Albany, Albany, NY, 12203, United States
Mihir Tungare
Affiliation:
[email protected], College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, 255 Fuller Road, University at Albany, Albany, NY, 12203, United States
Fatemeh Shahedipour-Sandvik
Affiliation:
[email protected], College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, 255 Fuller Road, University at Albany,, Albany, NY, 12203, United States
Get access

Abstract

It is determined that the interfacial strain due to lattice mismatch between the substrate (template) and the overgrown nanostructure has substantial influence on the final morphology and faceting of nanostructures. AlGaN and GaN nanostructures were grown on different substrates/templates, namely Sapphire, AlN/Sapphire, Al0.5Ga0.5N/Sapphire and GaN/Sapphire, where interfacial strain for overgrown nanostructures changes from compressive to tensile respectively. GaN nanostructures grown by metalorganic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) using identical growth parameters exhibit pyramidal morphologies under low or no mismatch strain, while highly strained structures with compressive strain evolve into prismatic shapes when grown in the c-crystallographic direction. In addition, it is shown that interfacial strain also affects the growth rate and alloy composition of ternary AlGaN nanostructures produced under identical conditions on different templates/substrates. AlGaN nanostructures grown under compressive strain show higher vertical and lower lateral growth rates when compared to those under tensile strain. Scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy and cathodoluminescene were used to characterize growth rates, shape and composition of the nanostructures. Observed variation in morphologies, growth rates and compositions are explained in terms of the strain dependency of adatom diffusion barriers on strained surfaces and Ehrlich-Schwoebel barriers across different crystallographic planes. Density functional (DFT) calculations were performed to determine the dependency of adatom diffusion on strained GaN and AlN surfaces.

Keywords

metalorganic depositionIII-Vnanostructure
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1087: Symposium V – Crystal-Shape Control and Shape-Dependent Properties – Methods, Mechanism, Theory, and Simulation , 2008 , 1087-V07-02
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

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. Feng, Z. C., III-nitride: semiconductor materials (Imperial College Press Distributed by World Scientific, London, Hackensack, NJ, 2006).Google Scholar
2. Gherasimova, J. S. M., Cui, G., Ren, Z. Y., Jeon, S. R., Han, J., He, Y., Song, Y. K., Nurmikko, A. V., Ciuparu, D., Pfefferle, L., physica status solidi (c) 2, 2361–2364 (2005).Google Scholar
3. Martin, J., Martinez, A., Goh, W. H., Gautier, S., Dupuis, N., Gratiet, L. Le, Decobert, J., Ramdane, A., Maloufi, N., and Ougazzaden, A., Materials Science and Engineering: B 147, 114–117 (2008).Google Scholar
4. Alizadeh, A., Sharma, P., Ganti, S., LeBoeuf, S. F., and Tsakalakos, L., Journal of Applied Physics 95, 8199–8206 (2004).Google Scholar
5. Akasaka, T., Kobayashi, Y., Ando, S., and Kobayashi, N., Applied Physics Letters 71, 2196–2198 (1997).Google Scholar
6. Hiramatsu, K., Nishiyama, K., Motogaito, A., Miyake, H., Iyechika, Y., and Maeda, T., Physica Status Solidi a-Applied Research 176, 535–543 (1999).Google Scholar
7. Wulff, G., Zeitschrift Fur Krystallographie Und Mineralogie 34, 449 (1901).Google Scholar
8. Herring, C., Physical Review 82, 87 (1951).Google Scholar
9. Hoffman, D. W. and Cahn, J. W., Surface Science 31, 368–388 (1972).Google Scholar
10. Osher, S. and Merriman, B., Asian Journal of Mathematics 1, 560–571 (1997).Google Scholar
11. Kaischew, R., B. Acad. Sci. Bulg. P. 2, 191 (1951).Google Scholar
12. Muller, P. and Kern, R., Surface Science 457, 229–253 (2000).Google Scholar
13. Robert, F. S., Crystal Research and Technology 40, 291–306 (2005).Google Scholar
14. Keller, S., Heikman, S., Ben-Yaacov, I., Shen, L., DenBaars, S. P., and Mishra, U. K., Appl. Phys. Lett, 79, 3449 (2001).Google Scholar
15. Monroy, E., Daudin, B., Bellet-Amalric, E., Gogneau, N., Jalabert, D., Enjalbert, F., Brault, J., Barjon, J. and Dang, Le Si, J. Appl. Phys., 93, 1551 (2003).Google Scholar
16. Jindal, V., Grandusky, J., tripathi, N., Tungare, M., Shahedipour-Sandvik, F., Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., (Fall, 2007) (accepted).Google Scholar