Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T22:34:19.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Absolute Pressure Dependence of the Second Ionization Level of EL2 in GaAs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

D.E. Bliss ,
W. Walukiewicz ,
D.D. Nolte  and
E.E. Haller
D.E. Bliss
Affiliation:
Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, and the Center for Advanced Materials, Materials and Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720
W. Walukiewicz
Affiliation:
Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, and the Center for Advanced Materials, Materials and Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720
D.D. Nolte
Affiliation:
Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, and the Center for Advanced Materials, Materials and Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720
E.E. Haller
Affiliation:
Dept. of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, and the Center for Advanced Materials, Materials and Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720
Get access

Abstract

We report the results of DLTS experiments under uniaxial stress on the second ionization level of EL2(++/+) in p-type GaAs. We measured the shift in the hole emission rate as a function of stress applied in the [100] and [110] directions. By modeling the valence band with two independently displacing bands and appropriately derived effective masses, we obtain a small absolute hydrostatic pressure derivative for the defect, 39 ±15 meV GPa-1. The shear contribution is negligible. This result is very different than for the first ionization level, EL2(+/o) with a emission energy pressure derivative of 90 ±15 meV GPa-1. The difference can be accounted for by the pressure dependence of the electron capture barrier of EL2(+/o), 49 ±15meV GPa-1. The absolute pressure derivatives of the two levels are then comparable and in good agreement with simple theory for Ga site point defects.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 163: Symposium G – Impurities, Defects and Diffusion in Semiconductors: Bulk and Layered Structures , 1989 , 815
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

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 Wager, J.F. and Van Vechten, J.A., Phys. Rev. B 35, 2330 (1987).Google Scholar
2 Bardelebeln, H.J. Stievenard, D., Bourgoin, J.C., and Huber, A. Appl. Phys. Lett. 47, 970 (1985).Google Scholar
3 Lagowski, J., Gatos, H.C., Parsey, J.M., Wada, K., Kaminska, M. and Walukiewicz, W., Appl. Phys. Lett. 40, 342 (1982).Google Scholar
4 Kaminska, M., Skowronski, M.,. and Kuszko, W., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2204 (1985).Google Scholar
5 Chadi, D.J. and Chang, K.J., Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2187 (1988].Google Scholar
6 Dabrowski, J. and Scheffler, M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2183 (1988).Google Scholar
7 Hoinkis, M., Weber, E.R., Walukiewicz, W., Lagowski, J., Matsui, M., Gatos, H.C., Meyer, B.K., and Spaeth, J.M., Phys. Rev. B. (in press).Google Scholar
8 Weber, E.R., Ennen, H., Kaufmann, U., Windscheif, J., Schneider, J., and Wosinski, T., J. Appl. Phys. 53, 6140 (1982).Google Scholar
9 Lagowski, J., Lin, D.G., Chen, T.P., Skowronski, M., and Gatos, H.C., Appl. Phys. Lett. 47, 929 (1985).Google Scholar
10 Nolte, D.D., Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Department of Physics, (1988).Google Scholar
11 Benton, J.L., Lee, K.M., Freeland, P.E., and Kimmerling, L.C., AIME, Thirteenth International Conference on Defects in Semiconductors 14a, 647 (1984).Google Scholar
12 Henry, P.M., Farmer, J.W., and Meese, J.M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 45, 454 (1984).Google Scholar
13 Kleverman, M., Omling, P., Ledebo, L.A., and Grimmeiss, H.G., J Appl. Phys. 54, 814 (1983)Google Scholar
14 Nolte, D.D. and Haller, E.E., Phys. Rev. B 38, 9857 (1988).Google Scholar
15 Bhargava, R.N.,and Nathan, M.I., Phys. Rev. 161, 695 (1967).Google Scholar
16 Nolte, D.D., Walukiewicz, W., and Haller, E.E., Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 501 (1987).Google Scholar
17 Nolte, D.D., Walukiewicz, W., and Haller, E.E., Phys. Rev. B 36, 9374 (1987).Google Scholar
18 Dobaczewski, L. and Sienkiewicz, A., Acta Phys. Pol. A 71, 341 (1987).Google Scholar
19 Dreszer, P. and Baj, M., Acta Phys. Pol. A 73, 219 (1987).Google Scholar
20 Ren, S.Y., Dow, J.D., and Wolford, D.J., Phys. Rev. B 25, 7661 (1982)Google Scholar