Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-z8dg2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-05T19:18:01.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Defect Mechanisms in Degradation of Long Wavelength (1.30–1.55 Micron) Laser Diodes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2011

S. N. G. Chu*
Affiliation:
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
Get access

Abstract

Optical degradation of long wavelength (1.30–1.55 micron) laser diodes during normal operation or accelerated aging test caused by lattice structural deterioration of the active region materials and mirror facet damage were investigated in detail. Extrinsic dislocation loops of 1/2<100>{010) types were observed in gradually degraded channeled-substrate-buried-heterostructure (CSBH) lasers. These dislocation loops, originated at the sidewall interfaces outside the active region, grew into the active region in the direction of minority carrier injection. A great enhancement of the loops' growth rate was observed after they entered the active region, indicating a nonradiative recombination enhanced defect reaction under the strong optical field. Furthermore, the <100> oriented extrinsic dislocation loops were confirmed to be dark-line-defects (DLDs). On the other hand, strong nonradiative recombination centers, created by mirror facet damage, or pre-existed internally inside the cavity, resulted localized melting on the {111} planes. The propagation of the localized melt-patch along the laser beam direction created a wormlike defect along the laser cavity, which degraded the laser device catastrophically. Various types of grown-in defects for CSBH and etched-mesa-buried-heterostructure (EMBH) laser devices are described and their effects on the device performance are demonstrated.

Type
Research Article
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

REFERENCES

[1] Chu, S.N.G., Nakahara, S., Twigg, M.E., Koszi, L. A., Flynn, E.J., Chin, A.K., Segner, B.P., and Johnston, W.D. Jr. J. Appl. Phys., 63, 611 (1988).10.1063/1.340100Google Scholar
[2] Fukuda, M. and Iwane, G., J. Appl. Phys., 58, 2932 (1985).10.1063/1.336298Google Scholar
[3] Ueda, O., J. Electrochem. Soc., 135, 11C (1988).10.1149/1.2095535Google Scholar
[4] Murotani, T., Oomura, E., Higuchi, H., Namizaki, H., and Susaki, W., Electron. Lett. 16, 566 (1980).10.1049/el:19800393Google Scholar
[5] Wilt, D.P., Long, J., Dautremont-Smith, W.C., Focht, M.W., Shen, T.M., and Hartman, R.L., Electron. Lett. 22, 869 (1986).10.1049/el:19860594Google Scholar
[6] Logan, R.A. and Temkin, H., J. Cryst. Growth, 76, 17 (1986).10.1016/0022-0248(86)90005-9Google Scholar
[7] Chu, S.N.G. and Sheng, T.T., J. Electrochem. Soc., 131, 2663 (1984).10.1149/1.2115378Google Scholar
[8] Chu, S.N.G., Nakahara, S., Strege, K.E., and Johnston, W.D. Jr., J. Appl. Phys., 57, 4610 (1985).10.1063/1.335368Google Scholar
[9] Chu, S.N.G., Logan, R.A., and Temkin, H., J. Appl. Phys., 61, 2434 (1987).10.1063/1.337913Google Scholar
[10] Chu, S.N.G. and Nakahara, S., Appl. Phys. Lett., 56, 434 (1990).10.1063/1.102757Google Scholar
[11] Petroff, P.M. and Kimerling, L.C., Appl. Phys. Lett., 29,461 (1976).10.1063/1.89145Google Scholar
[12] Lang, D.V. and Kimerling, L.C., Phys. Rev. Lett., 33,489 (1974).10.1103/PhysRevLett.33.489Google Scholar
[13] Henry, C.H., Petroff, P.M., Logan, R.A., and Merritt, F.R., J. Appl. Phys., 50, 3721 (1979).10.1063/1.326278Google Scholar
[14] Mahajan, S., Temkin, H., and Logan, R.A., Appl. Phys. Lett., 44, 119 (1984).10.1063/1.94570Google Scholar
[15] Twigg, M.E. and Chu, S.N.G., Ultramicroscopy, 26, 51 (1988).10.1016/0304-3991(88)90376-2Google Scholar