English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

We have examined the effect of growth temperature and growth interruption time on molecular‐beam‐epitaxial growth of GaAs, Al0.3Ga0.7As, and InxGa1−xAs on GaAs substrates and In0.53Ga0.47As and In0.52Al0.48As on InP substrates using dynamical reflection high‐energy electron diffraction as an in situ probe. We have studied the time taken for a rough growth front to recover in the absence of growth as a function of growth temperature for these compounds. It is found that while GaAs and InGaAs surfaces can recover in 15–20 s under ideal growth conditions, Al0.3Ga0.7As surfaces take ≊45 s, and In0.52Al0.48As surfaces take several minutes to recover. Our results also suggest that smoothening of the growth front occurs by rearrangement of the surface atoms, rather than by re‐evaporation. We have also studied the effect of strain induced by mismatch on growth modes in the case of InxGa1−xAs on GaAs. Our studies suggest that the presence of strain inhibits the surface migration of adatoms during growth and thus tends to generate a rougher growth front

journal of applied physics

Comparative study of the growth processes of GaAs, AlGaAs, InGaAs, and InAlAs lattice matched and nonlattice matched semiconductors using high-energy electron diffraction