Approche géométrique des joints de grains. Intérêt et limite

Priester, L.

doi:10.1051/rphysap:01980001504078900

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 124 publications

(222 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, no dislocations were observed at the interface contrary to what was reported for compliant layers bonded with low twist angle [9][10][11][12]. Furthermore, no dislocations were observed at the interface contrary to what was reported for compliant layers bonded with low twist angle [9][10][11][12].…”

contrasting

confidence: 67%

“…No pop-in event occurred contrary to what was observed on bulk GaAs. 11 On the other hand, the cross-sectional view showed great variations of the compliant layer thickness (Fig. In low-angle, twist-compliant substructures, dislocation nucleation occurs at a lower force because of the high density of defects located at the interface as described later.…”

Section: Plastic Behavior Of the Compliant Substrates Compliant Substmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improvement of heteroepitaxial growth by the use of twist-bonded compliant substrate: Role of the surface plasticity

Patriarche

Bourhis

2003

Journal of Elec Materi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

contrasting

confidence: 67%

Section: Plastic Behavior Of the Compliant Substrates Compliant Substmentioning

confidence: 85%

Improvement of heteroepitaxial growth by the use of twist-bonded compliant substrate: Role of the surface plasticity

Patriarche

Bourhis

2003

Journal of Elec Materi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Using the nanoindentation technique we showed that the plastic onset was shifted to higher loads in a compliant structure designed with a 45°twist angle in comparison with that in bulk GaAs (Patriarche and Le Bourhis 2001). Using a lower twist angle produces a decrease in the energy E of the boundary (Priester 1980). Close to ˆ37°, a Sˆ5 boundary is formed and corresponds to a minimum in the E… † curve.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…This means that 2°separate the actual boundary from an ideal Sˆ5 boundary. This di erence is expected to increase the energy E of the boundary as the E… † curve is very steep around ˆ37°( Priester 1980). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Onset of plasticity in a Σ = 5 GaAs compliant structure

Bourhis¹,

Patriarche²

2001

Philosophical Magazine Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compliant structures have been fabricated in which a thin GaAs layer (thickness between 10 and 20 nm) was bonded on top of a GaAs substrate with a large twist angle (about 37°). This twist angle value was chosen so that the energy of the boundary (coincident boundary of type Sˆ5 …001 †) was minimized. The structure of the interface was characterized and the onset of plasticity in such a compliant substructure was investigated using nanoindentation that allowed the low-load deformation regime to be observed. The results are compared with those obtained under the same conditions on a GaAs bulk substrate alone. No plastic zone was observed by transmission electron microscopy in the compliant structure under loads below 0.25 mN while, under the same loads, plastic deformation was observed in the bulk substrate. For higher loads (2 mN), plastic-¯ow enhancement was observed in the compliant structure. The results are discussed in the light of the arrangement of dislocations observed in the plastic zones. } 1. Introduction Heteroepitaxy of III±V semiconductors is commonly used to fabricate electronic and optoelectronic devices that require materials of high structural quality. Above a critical thickness of the layers (which decreases rapidly with increasing mis®t), the epitaxial layers relax plastically through the introduction of mis®t dislocations at the interface. Unfortunately, this relaxation process also generates a large density of threading dislocations extending from the interface with the substrate to the top surface of the heterostructure. These dislocations adversely a ect the performance of the devices. The various procedures tried to eliminate the dislocations in standard epitaxy have so far remained insu ciently e ective.The compliant substrate was introduced to overcome this problem. The original idea was to relax the mis®t strain in a small region underneath the active region. The ideal situation is a free-standing layer set on the original substrate that can deform elastically, or even plastically, to relax the mis®t strain between the substrate and the Philosophical Magazin e Letters ISSN

show abstract

“…Studies of that interaction, however, are rather rare. There have been extensive investigations of the grain boundaries themselves, both of their structure (Priester 1980, Gleiter 1982, Balluffi 1986) and of grain-boundary mechanics (Hirth 1972). Extensive work has also been done on single-crystal plasticity, but it remains questionable how relevant our knowledge on single-crystal plasticity is for polycrystalline deformation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%