Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T17:10:42.684Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shape Transitions of Self-Assembled Ge Islands on Si (001)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Armando Rastelli ,
Matthias Kummer  and
Hans von Känel
Armando Rastelli
Affiliation:
INFM - Università di Pavia, Via Bassi 6, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
Matthias Kummer
Affiliation:
Laboratorium für Festkörperphysik, ETH Zürich, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland
Hans von Känel
Affiliation:
Laboratorium für Festkörperphysik, ETH Zürich, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland
Get access

Abstract

Coherently strained Ge islands were grown at a substrate temperature of 550°C by magnetron sputter epitaxy on Si (001) and studied by scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM). The shape changes induced by exposure to a Si-flux at 450°C were investigated as a function of the Sicoverage. During Si-capping, multifaceted domes were found to flatten and to transform into {105}-faceted pyramids and subsequently into stepped mounds through intermediate shapes. The observed sequence of morphological changes is induced by Si-Ge intermixing and is shown to be the inverse of that occurring during Ge or Si1-xGex growth on Si (001). The results are interpreted with a model in which the stable shape of an island mainly depends on its volume and composition.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 696: Symposium N – Current Issues in Heteroepitaxial Growth--Stress Relaxation and Self Assembly , 2001 , N5.4
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2002

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.Schmidt, O.G., et al. Appl. Phys. Lett. 77 2509 (2000).Google Scholar
2.Sutter, P. and Lagally, M.G., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 3471 (1998).Google Scholar
3.Kummer, M., Vögeli, B., and Känel, H. von, Mat. Sci. and Eng. B69 247 (2000).Google Scholar
4.Rastelli, A., Kummer, M., Känel, H. von, Phys. Rev. Lett. (in press).Google Scholar
5.Nakagawa, K. and Miyao, M., J. Appl. Phys. 69 3058 (1990).Google Scholar
6.Joyce, P.B., Krzyzewski, T.J., Steans, P.H., Bell, G.R., Neave, J.H., and Jones, T.S., Surf. Sci. 492 345 (2001).Google Scholar
7.Floro, J.A., et al. Phys. Rev. B59 1990 (1999).Google Scholar
8.Chen, K.M., et al. Phys. Rev. B56 1700 (1997).Google Scholar
9.Medeiros-Ribeiro, G., et al. Science 279 353 (1998).Google Scholar
10.Ross, F.M., Tromp, R.M., and Reuter, M.C., Science 286, 1931(1999).Google Scholar
11.Vailionis, A., et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 3672 (2000).Google Scholar
12.Daruka, I., Tersoff, J., and Barabási, A.L., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 2753 (1999).Google Scholar
13.Dorsch, W., et al. Appl. Phys. Lett. 72 179 (1998).Google Scholar
14.Kamins, T.I.et. al., Appl. Phys. A67 727 (1998).Google Scholar
15.Ross, F.M., Tersoff, J., and Tromp, R.M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 984 (1998).Google Scholar
16.Raiteri, P.et al. (in press).Google Scholar