Cathodoluminescence evaluation of subsurface damage in GaN substrate after polishing

Physica Status Solidi (C) Current Topics in Solid State Physics

Volumn 6, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2009, Pages

  Lai, K Y ^a   Johnson, M A L ^a   Paskova, T ^b   Hanser, A D ^b   Udwary, K ^b   Preble, E A ^b   Evans, K R ^b  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b KYMA TECHNOLOGIES INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCELERATION VOLTAGES; CATHODOLUMINESCENCE SPECTROSCOPY; GAN SUBSTRATE; SEM; SUB-SURFACE DAMAGE; SURFACE SCRATCHES; THERMAL-ANNEALING;

ANNEALING; ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY; CATHODOLUMINESCENCE; GALLIUM ALLOYS; GALLIUM NITRIDE; GAS MIXTURES; OPTICAL PROPERTIES; POLISHING; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; SUBSTRATES; SURFACE PROPERTIES;

SURFACE ROUGHNESS;

EID: 79251602461     PISSN: 18626351     EISSN: 16101642     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pssc.200880891     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. H. Fujikura, K. Lizuka, and S. Tanaka, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 42, 2767 (2003).
2. A.D. Williams and T.D. Moustakas, J. Cryst. Growth 300, 37 (2007).
3. K. Akita, T. Kyono, Y. Yoshizumi, H. Kitabayashi, and K. Katayama, J. Appl. Phys. 101, 033104 (2007).
4. X.A. Cao, H. Lu, E.B. Kaminsky, S.D. Arthur, J.R. Grandusky, and F. Shahedipour-Sandvik, J. Cryst. Growth 300, 382 (2007).
5. J.R. Grandusky, V. Jindal, N. Tripathi, F. Shahedipour-Sandvik, H. Lu, E.B. Kaminsky, and R. Melkote, J. Cryst. Growth 307, 309 (2007).
6. J.H. Ryu, D.K. Oh, S.T. Yoon, B.G. Choi, J.-W. Yoon, and K.B. Shim, J. Cryst. Growth 292, 206 (2006).
7. D. Hanser, L. Liu, E.A. Preble, D. Thomas, and M. Williams, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 798, Y2.1.1 (2004).
8. D. Hanser, M. Tutor, E.A. Preble, M. Williams, X. Xu, D. Tsvetkov, and L. Liu, J. Cryst. Growth 305, 372 (2007).
9. T.H. Myers, B.L. VanMil, L.J. Holbert, C.Y. Peng, C.D. Stiespring, J. Alam, J.A. Freitas, Jr., V.A. Dmitriev, A. Pechnikov, Y. Shapovalova, and V. Ivantsov, J. Cryst. Growth 246, 244 (2002).
10. The main difference in growth conditions for Sample A and Sample B were oxygen and ammonia flows. The oxygen flow ratio for Sample A and B is 4:1, while the ammonia flow ratio is 1:3. Oxygen was used for n-type doping. Ammonia was used to provide nitrogen source.
11. M.A. Mastro, O.M. Kryliouk, M.D. Reed, T.J. Anderson, A. Davydov, and S. Shapiro, Phys. Status Solidi A 188, 467 (2001).
12. H. Shin, E. Arkun, D.B. Thomson, P. Miraglia, E. Preble, R. Schlesser, S. Wolter, Z. Sitar, and R.F. Davis, J. Cryst. Growth 236, 529 (2002).
13. Software available at http:// www.gel.usherbrooke.ca/casino
14. G.A. Slack, L.J. Schowalter, D. Morelli, and J.A. Freitas, Jr., J. Cryst. Growth 246, 287 (2002).usha1