Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:29:08.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nucleation of Semiconductor Quantum Dots on Nanomesas: Role of Stressors and Early Stages of Capping Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Cyril Meynier
Affiliation:
catherine.priester@isen.fr, CNRS-UMR 8520
Catherine Priester
Affiliation:
catherine.priester@isen.fr, IEMN, ISEN, BP 60069, VILLENEUVE D'ASCQ, CEDEX, 59652, France, (+33) 320 197 911, (+33) 320 197 884
Get access

Abstract

Here is reported, from the theoretical point of view, how a stressor layer included in a nanomesa can modify the growth process of a mismatched material : critical thickness for 2D-3D transition, and optimal location of nucleating dots by means of the induced stress field. This stress field depends on both design parameters and sign of the misfit between the stressor and the mesa material. This is exemplified by the case of InAs deposition on InP mesas which include an InGaAs stressor. A second case in which stress field plays a key role is the capping of dots on top of nanomesas . We investigate the case of Si capping of a system where one Ge dot covers the top of each mesa of a very dense array of Si nanomesas. Upon several basic assumptions, different capping processes are simulated, in order to predict the more stable one. We point out very different behaviors for pure Si capping or SiGe capping. How long it takes for recovering a flat surface strongly depends on the presence of a thin Ge surface layer.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2006

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] Leroy, F., Eymery, J., Gentille, P, Fournel, F., Surf. Sci. 545 (2003) 211 Google Scholar
[2] Bavencoffe, M., Houdard, E. and Priester, C. J. Cryst. Growth 275 (2005)305 Google Scholar
[3] Kiravittaya, S., Heidemeyer, H., Schmidt, O.G., Physica E (2004) 253 B. Gerardot et al., J. Crystal Growth, 236 (2002) 647Google Scholar
[4] Mui, D.S. et al. , Appl. Phys. Lett. 66 (1995) 1620 Google Scholar
[5] Jin, G. et al. , Appl. Phys. Lett. 75 (1999) 2752.Google Scholar
[6] Kitajima, T. et al. , Appl. Phys. Lett. 80 (2002) 497 Google Scholar
[7] as a matter of fact only the surface variation is included; in the systems modelized here these are 110 type, and we refer surface energy changes to the number of surface dangling bonds(got for the corresponding atomistic model), allotting about 0.3 eV/dangling bondGoogle Scholar
[8] Here is reported the case of sharp square mesas- other shapes (circular, rectangular basis, smoother facets) have been calculated and do not significantly alter the resultGoogle Scholar
[9] All the results reported here keep qualitatively unchanged when the dangling bond cost varies from .3 to .4 eVGoogle Scholar