OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: C. Martijn de Sterke
  • Vol. 16, Iss. 26 — Dec. 22, 2008
  • pp: 21512–21521
« Show journal navigation

Attempts to grow optically coupled Fibonacci-spaced InGaAs/GaAs quantum wells result in surface gratings

B. C. Richards, J. Hendrickson, J. Sweet, G. Khitrova, D. Litvinov, D. Gerthsen, B. Myer, S. Pau, D. Sarid, M. Wegener, E. L. Ivchenko, A. N. Poddubny, and H. M. Gibbs  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 16, Issue 26, pp. 21512-21521 (2008)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.16.021512


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (2105 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

An instability in the growth of nonperiodic InGaAs/GaAs multiple quantum well samples, ordinarily of high-quality when grown with equal periods of order of half the wavelength of light in the material, leads to a dramatic microscopic, self-organized surface grating. This effect was discovered while growing quantum wells with two unequal barrier lengths arranged in a Fibonacci sequence to form an optical quasicrystal. A laser beam incident normal to the surface of the sample is diffracted into a propeller-shaped pattern. The sample surface has a distinctly cloudy appearance when viewed along one crystal axis but is mirror-like when the sample is rotated 90°. The instability results in a five-fold increase in the absorption linewidth of the heavy-hole exciton transition. Atomic force microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, and scanning electron microscopy were used to study the samples.

© 2008 Optical Society of America

The growth of self-organizing semiconductor nanostructures has been the subject of intense research activity for the promising fundamental and technological opportunities that they present. Here we report on the curious all-epitaxial growth of self-organizing, microscopic gratings on standard (001)-cut GaAs substrates by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE). Changes in surface morphology, including the formation of surface corrugations, have been reported previously in strained InGaAs single layers exceeding the critical thickness [1

1. K. L. Kavanagh, M. A. Capano, L. W. Hobbs, J. C. Barbour, P. M. J. Maree, W. Schaff, J. W. Mayer, D. Pettit, J. M. Woodall, J. A. Stroscio, and R. M. Feenstra, “Asymmetries in dislocation densities, surface morphology, and strain of GaInAs/GaAs single heterolayers,” J. Appl. Phys. 64, 4843–4852 (1988). [CrossRef]

,2

2. S. F. Yoon, “Surface morphology and quality of strained InGaAs grown by molecular-beam epitaxy on GaAs,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 11, 562–566 (1993). [CrossRef]

,3

3. C. Lavoie, T. Pinnington, E. Nodwell, T. Tiedje, R. S. Goldman, K. L. Kavanagh, and J. L. Hutter, “Relationship between surface morphology and strain relaxation during growth of InGaAs strained layers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 3744–3746 (1995). [CrossRef]

]. Our growth instability manifests itself in InGaAs/GaAs multiple quantum well (MQW) samples with nonperiodic or unequal spacings between QW centers. We discovered the effect accidentally while growing MQW samples whose spacings follow a Fibonacci sequence thereby forming an optical quasicrystal. When such structures are grown with GaAs QWs between AlGaAs barriers, they display new resonant excitonic-polaritonic effects [4

4. J. Hendrickson, B. C. Richards, J. Sweet, G. Khitrova, A. N. Poddubny, E. L. Ivchenko, M. Wegener, and H. M. Gibbs, “Excitonic polaritons in Fibonacci quasicrystals,” Opt. Express 16, 15382–15387 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

,5

5. A. N. Poddubny, L. Pilozzi, M. M. Voronov, and E. L. Ivchenko, “Resonant Fibonacci quantum well structures in one dimension,” Phys. Rev. B 77, 113306 (2008). [CrossRef]

] that are interestingly different from those observed in traditional periodic MQW samples [6

6. E. L. Ivchenko, “Excitonic polaritons in periodic quantum-well structures,” Sov. Phys. Solid State 33, 1344–1349 (1991).

,7

7. J. P. Prineas, C. Ell, E. S. Lee, G. Khitrova, and H. M. Gibbs, “Exciton-polariton eigenmodes in light-coupled In0.04Ga0.96As/GaAs semiconductor multiple-quantum-well periodic structures,” Phys. Rev. B 61, 13863–13872 (2000). [CrossRef]

]. One might expect to see the same new effects using InGaAs QWs between GaAs barriers with spacings obeying the Fibonacci sequence, and, in fact, based on many years of experience growing narrow linewidth InGaAs QWs [8

8. C. Ell, J. P. Prineas, T. R. Nelson Jr., S. Park, H. M. Gibbs, G. Khitrova, S. W. Koch, and R. Houdre, “Influence of structural disorder and light coupling on the excitonic response of semiconductor microcavities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4795 (1998). [CrossRef]

,7

7. J. P. Prineas, C. Ell, E. S. Lee, G. Khitrova, and H. M. Gibbs, “Exciton-polariton eigenmodes in light-coupled In0.04Ga0.96As/GaAs semiconductor multiple-quantum-well periodic structures,” Phys. Rev. B 61, 13863–13872 (2000). [CrossRef]

], we tried them first. However those samples exhibit a spontaneously organized surface grating that obscures such new effects. The ridges of the surface grating grow higher and wider as more QWs are grown. This surface grating is not observed in the GaAs/AlGaAs samples, where the lattice constants of the QWs and the barriers are nearly equal. It is also rarely observed in periodic InGaAs/GaAs MQW samples with equal length barriers, even when the number of QWs is very high. It has so far always been observed with sequences of nonperiodic spacings, even when the QW indium concentration is very low. These results will interest researchers fabricating and characterizing light-emitting one-dimensional photonic quasicrystals based on excitonic resonances and perhaps those growing lines of quantum dots [9

9. J. H. Lee, Z. M. Wang, B. L. Liang, W. T. Black, V. P. Kunets, Y. I. Mazur, and G. J. Salamo, “Selective growth of InGaAs/GaAs quantum dot chains on pre-patterend GaAs(100),” Nanotechnology 17, 2275–2278 (2006). [CrossRef]

].

In what follows we describe the properties of these structures, which we have investigated using atomic force microscopy (AFM) and fast Fourier transform (FFT) analysis of the surface profiles, as well as transmission electron microscopy (TEM) for imaging cross sections of the structures. Our TEM investigations were performed with a Philips CM 200 FEG/ST electron microscope with an electron energy of 200 keV. Plan-view TEM samples were prepared by chemical etching from the substrate side using a 5:1 solution of NaOH (1 mol/l) and H2O2 (30%). Standard procedures [10

10. A. Strecker, J. Mayer, B. Baretzky, W. Eigenthaler, T. Gemming, R. Schweinfest, and M. Rühle, “Optimization of TEM specimen preparation by double-sided ion beam thinning under low angles,” J. Electron Microsc. (Tokyo) 48, 235–244 (1999).

] were used for cross-section sample preparation. TEM dark-field (DF) images were taken under two-beam conditions using the composition-sensitive (002) reflection close to the [110]-, [1

1. K. L. Kavanagh, M. A. Capano, L. W. Hobbs, J. C. Barbour, P. M. J. Maree, W. Schaff, J. W. Mayer, D. Pettit, J. M. Woodall, J. A. Stroscio, and R. M. Feenstra, “Asymmetries in dislocation densities, surface morphology, and strain of GaInAs/GaAs single heterolayers,” J. Appl. Phys. 64, 4843–4852 (1988). [CrossRef]

10

10. A. Strecker, J. Mayer, B. Baretzky, W. Eigenthaler, T. Gemming, R. Schweinfest, and M. Rühle, “Optimization of TEM specimen preparation by double-sided ion beam thinning under low angles,” J. Electron Microsc. (Tokyo) 48, 235–244 (1999).

]- or [010]-zone axes. Our AFM, manufactured by Nanoscience Instruments Inc., has nominal lateral and z resolution of 1.1 nm and 0.21 nm respectively. All of the surface roughness values reported here are root-mean-square (rms) values computed from AFM measurements over a 1600 µm2 area (40 µm by 40 µm). The FFTs were executed on the same AFM images as the surface roughness measurements. Unless stated otherwise, all of the samples reported here were grown on a standard (001)-cut GaAs substrate with a maximum tilt of ±0.1° and a 500 nm GaAs buffer layer grown on the substrate before starting QW growth.

Fig. 1. AFM image of FIB1 showing a flat surface, with rms surface roughness of 0.63 nm.
Fig. 2. Fast Fourier transform image of FIB1 showing only low spatial frequencies.
Fig 3. (002) Dark-field cross section TEM image of FIB1 showing uniform flatness of the 10 InGaAs QWs.

FIB3 is a 56 In0.04Ga0.96As/GaAs MQW sample grown like FIB1 except for the QW separations which are according to the Fibonacci sequence where the Fibonacci chain Fj contains QWs with two different separations A and B between the centers of the wells. The ratio of the optical pathlengths of B to A equals the golden mean (√5+1)/2; note that the physical length of A or B is the sum of the barrier length and the QW length (≅8 nm). For In0.04Ga0.96As wells and GaAs barriers, the two refractive indices are almost the same so the ratio of the physical lengths of B to A is also close to the golden mean. For FIB3, the short separation A is ≅82 nm and the long separation B is ≅126 nm, i.e., close to 0.36λ and 0.59λ. The Fibonacci recursion relation is found as follows: Fj+1 is formed by adding Fj-1 to the end of Fj: BABBABABBABBA… [5

5. A. N. Poddubny, L. Pilozzi, M. M. Voronov, and E. L. Ivchenko, “Resonant Fibonacci quantum well structures in one dimension,” Phys. Rev. B 77, 113306 (2008). [CrossRef]

,4

4. J. Hendrickson, B. C. Richards, J. Sweet, G. Khitrova, A. N. Poddubny, E. L. Ivchenko, M. Wegener, and H. M. Gibbs, “Excitonic polaritons in Fibonacci quasicrystals,” Opt. Express 16, 15382–15387 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. This structure is thus a nonperiodic, but deterministic, sequence of QWs with two unequal spacings. The same two minute growth interruption was employed as for FIB1.

Fig. 4. Propeller shaped scattering pattern of a HeNe laser beam reflected from the surface of a Fibonacci MQW sample (FIB7).

The quality of InGaAs QWs is often characterized by the absorption linewidth of the heavy-hole exciton. We performed low-temperature transmission measurements in order to compare the absorption linewidths of FIB3 (Fig. 5) and FIB1 (Fig. 6). Because the substrate absorption is nonzero in the vicinity of the heavy-hole resonance, it has been subtracted as shown in the figures. The shift of the exciton peak between the two samples is due to a small decrease in the QW indium concentration (still roughly 4%). The 0.6 meV absorption linewidth of FIB1 is typical for our high quality periodic QWs [7

7. J. P. Prineas, C. Ell, E. S. Lee, G. Khitrova, and H. M. Gibbs, “Exciton-polariton eigenmodes in light-coupled In0.04Ga0.96As/GaAs semiconductor multiple-quantum-well periodic structures,” Phys. Rev. B 61, 13863–13872 (2000). [CrossRef]

,8

8. C. Ell, J. P. Prineas, T. R. Nelson Jr., S. Park, H. M. Gibbs, G. Khitrova, S. W. Koch, and R. Houdre, “Influence of structural disorder and light coupling on the excitonic response of semiconductor microcavities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4795 (1998). [CrossRef]

]. In contrast, the >3 meV absorption linewidth of FIB3 prevents the observation of the interesting resonant reflection and photoluminescence phenomena we reported for GaAs/AlGaAs Fibonacci-spaced QWs [4

4. J. Hendrickson, B. C. Richards, J. Sweet, G. Khitrova, A. N. Poddubny, E. L. Ivchenko, M. Wegener, and H. M. Gibbs, “Excitonic polaritons in Fibonacci quasicrystals,” Opt. Express 16, 15382–15387 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. The increase in linewidth likely results from the different thicknesses of the QW as the instability develops. AFM scans reveal that the last QW is growing on hills ≅100 nm high and ≅800 nm apart, so the slopes often exceed 10°. We speculate that this along with edge growth effects result in very different thicknesses on the ridges, in the valleys, and on the slopes, giving different quantum confinement energy shifts and thus a broad total linewidth.

AFM measurements of FIB3 confirmed a dramatic grating pattern on the surface of the sample. While a typical MQW sample grown in our machine, such as FIB1, has an rms surface roughness of less than a nanometer, the surface of FIB3 reveals an rms surface roughness of nearly 40 nm. The FFT analysis of the surface confirms a strong periodicity of the surface wave along the [110] crystal axis, with the grating period peaked at 800 nm. These characteristics of the surface are consistent with the visual observation of scattering at steep angles along preferential crystal axes. The AFM image and FFT of FIB3 are shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, respectively. It is highly curious that the growth of nonperiodic QW spacings results in a grating on the surface that is almost periodic.

Fig. 5. Transmission and absorption spectra for FIB3. (T=9K) (a) Measured transmission for FIB3. (b) Total absorption for FIB3. (c) Absorption for GaAs substrate. (d) Absorption for the QWs of FIB3, equal to FIB3 total absorption minus substrate absorption, FWHM=3.1 meV.
Fig. 6. Transmission and absorption spectra for FIB1 (T=9K). (a) Measured transmission for FIB1. (b) Total absorption for FIB1. (c) Absorption for GaAs substrate. (d) Absorption for the QWs of FIB1, equal to FIB1 total absorption minus substrate absorption, FWHM=0.6 meV.
Fig. 7. AFM image of FIB3 showing the dramatic surface structure, with rms surface roughness of 38.5 nm and average period 800 nm.
Fig. 8. Fast Fourier transform image of FIB3 showing the dominant surface spatial frequencies, which are peaked near 800 nm.

FIB4 and FIB5 were grown according to the same Fibonacci sequence as FIB3, but with 13 QWs and no growth interruptions. The results were similar to FIB3, namely an observable rotation dependent cloudiness of the sample surface, confirmed as an organized surface grating by AFM and TEM. One difference, however, was that the ridges of these two samples were neither as wide nor as long as the ridges of FIB3. Figures 9 and 10 show an AFM image and an FFT image of the surface of FIB4. The surface roughness (17.3 and 27.5 nm, respectively) was also less than on FIB3.

Fig. 9. AFM image of FIB4, with rms surface roughness 17.3 nm and average period 525 nm.
Fig. 10. FFT image of FIB4 showing higher as well as more broadly distributed spatial frequencies than FIB3.

Figure 11 shows a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of the surface of FIB4, and Fig. 12 shows a TEM cross section. The latter shows that the first QW is flat, but that subsequent QWs develop a “waviness” that propagates and intensifies as more QWs are grown. This corroborates a general pattern we have observed, that with all else equal, growth of a larger number of QWs results in a more dramatic surface grating, with deeper grooves and longer and wider surface ridges.

Fig. 11. SEM image of FIB4 surface: Large arrows mark grooves perpendicular to the main ridge structure. Small arrows denote grooves on the facets.
Fig. 12. (002) Dark-field TEM image of FIB4 cross-section showing increasingly modulated QWs in the growth direction (top of image).

FIB6 consists of 8 periodic QWs with 114 nm separations and with no growth interruptions. It was grown to check that equal separations still gave a smooth top surface. The result was a sample that looked normal to the eye, so the growth series was continued with unequal separations. Later, however, first TEM and then AFM measurements revealed a shallow and high-frequency surface grating. FIB6 illustrates that surface gratings are not strictly confined to samples with unequal or nonperiodic barriers, but can also be initiated by other growth factors. Figures 13 and 14 show AFM and FFT images of FIB6, respectively. The fact that the sample looks normal to the eye is explained by the frequency of the surface grating, which is too high to noticeably scatter visible light.

Fig. 13. AFM image of FIB6, with rms surface roughness 9.7 nm and average period 385 nm.
Fig. 14. FFT image of FIB6 surface.

Fig. 15. AFM image of FIB7, with rms surface roughness 15.5 nm and average period 455 nm.
Fig. 16. FFT image of FIB7 surface.

Fig. 17. (002) Dark-field cross-section images of FIB7 close to the (a) [110] and (b) [110] direction showing waviness of the InGaAs QWs along both directions. The insets show magnified sections which contain the first (bottom) QWs.

FIB8 is an 8 QW sample grown with separations between the QWs in the sequence S, L, S, L, S, L, …., where S≅114 nm and L≅228 nm and with three-minute growth interruptions before each QW. The idea for FIB8 was to see if the growth instability could be affected simply by unequal separations, or if there is something inherent in the nonperiodic Fibonacci sequence that is responsible for the effect. The resulting sample showed a surface grating with average period 475 nm and rms surface roughness 24.4 nm. The AFM and FFT images are shown in Figs. 18 and 19.

Fig. 18. AFM image of FIB8, with rms surface roughness 24.4 nm and average period 475 nm.
Fig. 19. FFT image of FIB8 surface.

If the observed instability propagates and intensifies with growth, is it always present, perhaps to an extent more noticeable with unequal separations? To answer this question, we looked at several previously grown periodic MQW samples, both with and without growth interruptions. DBR34 is a 200 In0.04Ga0.96As/GaAs QW sample grown with 114 nm separations and a three-minute growth interruption before each QW. This is the largest number of periodic QWs grown on a single sample in our MBE machine, and we assume that if there is even a small intensifying surface instability it will be evident after 200 QWs. The surface, however, is flat, with an rms surface roughness of 0.8 nm. The AFM and FFT images are shown in Figs. 20 & 21.

Fig. 20. AFM image of DBR34, with rms surface roughness 0.8 nm.
Fig. 21. FFT image of DBR34 surface.

MOD16 is a periodic 30 In0.26Ga0.74As QW sample with high indium concentration, thin barriers and no growth interruptions. The surface is not flat, but is more highly disorganized than the surface structures of the Fibonacci samples. This result, along with the result for FIB6, suggests that the lack of a growth interruption before the QWs may trigger the surface instability even with equal barrier samples like MOD16 and FIB6. The AFM and FFT images of MOD16 are shown in Figs. 22 and 23.

Fig. 22. AFM image of MOD16, with rms surface roughness 11.3 nm.
Fig. 23. FFT image of MOD16 surface.

To find out whether the lack of a growth interruption is sufficient to trigger the surface instability, we examined a periodic 20 In0.06Ga0.94As QW sample (NMC11). These QWs were grown without growth interruptions, yet the surface is flat (0.7 nm rms), indicating that the absence of growth interruption is not by itself sufficient to trigger the observed surface instability. We also examined two other possible causes of the growth instability. We grew 13 QW Fibonacci structures on a brand new substrate (FIB9), thinking that perhaps deleterious surface effects on an older substrate could cause the observed surface instability, and on a substrate with polish tilted 1° toward the [1

1. K. L. Kavanagh, M. A. Capano, L. W. Hobbs, J. C. Barbour, P. M. J. Maree, W. Schaff, J. W. Mayer, D. Pettit, J. M. Woodall, J. A. Stroscio, and R. M. Feenstra, “Asymmetries in dislocation densities, surface morphology, and strain of GaInAs/GaAs single heterolayers,” J. Appl. Phys. 64, 4843–4852 (1988). [CrossRef]

10

10. A. Strecker, J. Mayer, B. Baretzky, W. Eigenthaler, T. Gemming, R. Schweinfest, and M. Rühle, “Optimization of TEM specimen preparation by double-sided ion beam thinning under low angles,” J. Electron Microsc. (Tokyo) 48, 235–244 (1999).

] axis (FIB15). The latter substrate was used to increase the step density because the preferential alignment of the ridges along the two <110>-type directions suggests that steps at the substrate or buffer-layer surface could contribute to the initiation of the growth instability. However, in both cases, the waviness and roughness of the sample surfaces were not affected noticeably.

In conclusion, in an attempt to grow Fibonacci-spaced InGaAs/GaAs QWs, we have discovered an all-epitaxial technique for growing self-organized gratings on the surface of MQW samples using unequal barriers. The observed growth instability is sometimes, though rarely, present on periodic structures, and may be triggered by the absence of a growth interruption before the QWs. Even with a growth interruption, however, so far the instability has always occurred if unequal barriers are grown. Furthermore, the use of unequal barriers to trigger the instability results in a more organized surface structure than when a disturbance is observed with equal barrier structures. The height, period, and length of the ridges of the grating increase with the number of layers in the structure. Although InGaAs/GaAs QWs have been one of the preferred systems for studies of periodic QWs because transmission measurements can be made without substrate removal, so far the GaAs/AlGaAs system has yielded much better results for nonperiodic QW spacings. If growth conditions can be found that eliminate this instability, it is likely that InGaAs/GaAs QWs will play a major role in the emerging field of complex nonperiodic nanophotonics.

Acknowledgments

We thank S. W. Koch for helpful discussions. The Tucson group thanks AFOSR, NSF, JSOP, and Arizona Technology & Research Initiative Funding (TRIF) for support. The Karlsruhe groups acknowledge financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the State of Baden-Württemberg through the DFG-Center for Functional Nanostructures (CFN) within subproject A1.4 and A2.5. The St. Petersburg work was supported by RFBR and the “Dynasty” Foundation — ICFPM.

References and links

1.

K. L. Kavanagh, M. A. Capano, L. W. Hobbs, J. C. Barbour, P. M. J. Maree, W. Schaff, J. W. Mayer, D. Pettit, J. M. Woodall, J. A. Stroscio, and R. M. Feenstra, “Asymmetries in dislocation densities, surface morphology, and strain of GaInAs/GaAs single heterolayers,” J. Appl. Phys. 64, 4843–4852 (1988). [CrossRef]

2.

S. F. Yoon, “Surface morphology and quality of strained InGaAs grown by molecular-beam epitaxy on GaAs,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 11, 562–566 (1993). [CrossRef]

3.

C. Lavoie, T. Pinnington, E. Nodwell, T. Tiedje, R. S. Goldman, K. L. Kavanagh, and J. L. Hutter, “Relationship between surface morphology and strain relaxation during growth of InGaAs strained layers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 3744–3746 (1995). [CrossRef]

4.

J. Hendrickson, B. C. Richards, J. Sweet, G. Khitrova, A. N. Poddubny, E. L. Ivchenko, M. Wegener, and H. M. Gibbs, “Excitonic polaritons in Fibonacci quasicrystals,” Opt. Express 16, 15382–15387 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5.

A. N. Poddubny, L. Pilozzi, M. M. Voronov, and E. L. Ivchenko, “Resonant Fibonacci quantum well structures in one dimension,” Phys. Rev. B 77, 113306 (2008). [CrossRef]

6.

E. L. Ivchenko, “Excitonic polaritons in periodic quantum-well structures,” Sov. Phys. Solid State 33, 1344–1349 (1991).

7.

J. P. Prineas, C. Ell, E. S. Lee, G. Khitrova, and H. M. Gibbs, “Exciton-polariton eigenmodes in light-coupled In0.04Ga0.96As/GaAs semiconductor multiple-quantum-well periodic structures,” Phys. Rev. B 61, 13863–13872 (2000). [CrossRef]

8.

C. Ell, J. P. Prineas, T. R. Nelson Jr., S. Park, H. M. Gibbs, G. Khitrova, S. W. Koch, and R. Houdre, “Influence of structural disorder and light coupling on the excitonic response of semiconductor microcavities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4795 (1998). [CrossRef]

9.

J. H. Lee, Z. M. Wang, B. L. Liang, W. T. Black, V. P. Kunets, Y. I. Mazur, and G. J. Salamo, “Selective growth of InGaAs/GaAs quantum dot chains on pre-patterend GaAs(100),” Nanotechnology 17, 2275–2278 (2006). [CrossRef]

10.

A. Strecker, J. Mayer, B. Baretzky, W. Eigenthaler, T. Gemming, R. Schweinfest, and M. Rühle, “Optimization of TEM specimen preparation by double-sided ion beam thinning under low angles,” J. Electron Microsc. (Tokyo) 48, 235–244 (1999).

OCIS Codes
(230.5590) Optical devices : Quantum-well, -wire and -dot devices
(350.2770) Other areas of optics : Gratings
(220.4241) Optical design and fabrication : Nanostructure fabrication
(160.5293) Materials : Photonic bandgap materials

ToC Category:
Photonic Crystals

History
Original Manuscript: September 16, 2008
Revised Manuscript: December 3, 2008
Manuscript Accepted: December 11, 2008
Published: December 15, 2008

Citation
B. C. Richards, J. Hendrickson, J. Sweet, G. Khitrova, D. Litvinov, D. Gerthsen, B. Myer, S. Pau, D. Sarid, M. Wegener, E. L. Ivchenko, A. N. Poddubny, and H. M. Gibbs, "Attempts to grow optically coupled Fibonacci-spaced InGaAs/GaAs quantum wells result in surface gratings," Opt. Express 16, 21512-21521 (2008)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-16-26-21512


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. K. L. Kavanagh, M. A. Capano, L. W. Hobbs, J. C. Barbour, P. M. J. Maree, W. Schaff, J. W. Mayer, D. Pettit, J. M. Woodall, J. A. Stroscio, and R. M. Feenstra, "Asymmetries in dislocation densities, surface morphology, and strain of GaInAs/GaAs single heterolayers," J. Appl. Phys. 64,4843-4852 (1988). [CrossRef]
  2. S. F. Yoon, "Surface morphology and quality of strained InGaAs grown by molecular-beam epitaxy on GaAs," J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 11, 562-566 (1993). [CrossRef]
  3. C. Lavoie, T. Pinnington, E. Nodwell, T. Tiedje, R. S. Goldman, K. L. Kavanagh and J. L. Hutter, "Relationship between surface morphology and strain relaxation during growth of InGaAs strained layers, " Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 3744-3746 (1995). [CrossRef]
  4. J. Hendrickson, B. C. Richards, J. Sweet, G. Khitrova, A. N. Poddubny, E. L. Ivchenko, M. Wegener, and H. M. Gibbs, "Excitonic polaritons in Fibonacci quasicrystals," Opt. Express 16, 15382-15387 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. A. N. Poddubny, L. Pilozzi, M. M. Voronov, and E. L. Ivchenko, "Resonant Fibonacci quantum well structures in one dimension," Phys. Rev. B 77, 113306 (2008). [CrossRef]
  6. E. L. Ivchenko, "Excitonic polaritons in periodic quantum-well structures," Sov. Phys. Solid State 33, 1344-1349 (1991).
  7. J. P. Prineas, C. Ell, E. S. Lee, G. Khitrova, and H. M. Gibbs, "Exciton-polariton eigenmodes in light-coupled In0.04Ga0.96As/GaAs semiconductor multiple-quantum-well periodic structures," Phys. Rev. B 61, 13863-13872 (2000). [CrossRef]
  8. C. Ell, J. P. Prineas, T. R. NelsonJr., S. Park, H. M. Gibbs, G. Khitrova, S. W. Koch, and R. Houdre, "Influence of structural disorder and light coupling on the excitonic response of semiconductor microcavities," Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4795 (1998). [CrossRef]
  9. J. H. Lee, Z. M. Wang, B. L. Liang, W. T. Black, V. P. Kunets, Y. I. Mazur, and G. J. Salamo, "Selective growth of InGaAs/GaAs quantum dot chains on pre-patterend GaAs(100)," Nanotechnology 17, 2275-2278 (2006). [CrossRef]
  10. A. Strecker, J. Mayer, B. Baretzky, W. Eigenthaler, T. Gemming, R. Schweinfest, and M. Rühle, "Optimization of TEM specimen preparation by double-sided ion beam thinning under low angles," J. Electron Microsc. (Tokyo) 48, 235-244 (1999).

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited