Observation of strong anisotropic forbidden transitions in (001) InGaAs/GaAs singlequantum well by reflectancedifference spectroscopy and its behavior under uniaxial strain
 JinLing Yu^{1},
 YongHai Chen^{1}Email author,
 ChenGuang Tang^{1},
 ChongYun Jiang^{1} and
 XiaoLing Ye^{1}
DOI: 10.1186/1556276X6210
© Yu et al; licensee Springer. 2011
Received: 27 July 2010
Accepted: 10 March 2011
Published: 10 March 2011
Abstract
The strong anisotropic forbidden transition has been observed in a series of InGaAs/GaAs singlequantum well with well width ranging between 3 nm and 7 nm at 80 K. Numerical calculations within the envelope function framework have been performed to analyze the origin of the optical anisotropic forbidden transition. It is found that the optical anisotropy of this transition can be mainly attributed to indium segregation effect. The effect of uniaxial strain on inplane optical anisotropy (IPOA) is also investigated. The IPOA of the forbidden transition changes little with strain, while that of the allowed transition shows a linear dependence on strain.
PACS 78.66.Fd, 78.20.Bh, 78.20.Fm
Introduction
It is well known that inplane optical anisotropy (IPOA) can be introduced in a (001)grown zincblende quantum well (QW) when the symmetry is reduced from D _{2d }to C _{2υ}[1–6]. There are two kinds of symmetry reduction effect (SRE), one is bulk SRE, and the other is interface SRE [2, 4]. The bulk SRE can be introduced by electric field, compositional variation across the QW and uniaxial strain [7–10]. The IPOA induced by uniaxial strain in GaAs/Al_{ x } Ga_{1x }As QWs has been reported by Shen [10], Rau [8] and Tang [11]. However, as far as we know, this effect in In_{ x } Ga_{1x }As/GaAs QW has never been reported.
The interface SRE, which origins from C _{2υ }symmetry of a (001) zincblende interface, can be introduced by special interface chemical bonds, segregation effect and the anisotropic interface structures [2, 3, 6]. It was found that the interfaceinduced IPOA was very strong in the QWs sharing nocommonatom, while the IPOA in QWs sharing common atoms such as GaAs/AlGaAs was too weak to be observed by conventional polarized spectroscopy [2, 4, 10]. Fortunately, the weak IPOA in the AlGaAs/GaAs and InGaAs/GaAs QWs can be well observed by the reflectancedifference spectroscopy (RDS) [2, 4, 6]. Wang et al. has studied forbidden transitions in In_{ x } Ga_{1x }As/GaAs by photoreflectance (PR) and attributed the forbidden transition to the builtin electric field [12]. Chen et al. [1] and Ye et al. [6] observed anisotropic forbidden transition in In_{ x } Ga_{1x }As/GaAs by RDS. Chen ascribed the anisotropic forbidden transition to the interplay of interface C _{2ν }symmetry and builtin electric field, while Ye attributed it to both the builtin electric field and segregation effect. In this study, we observed strong anisotropic forbidden transitions in a series of In_{ x } Ga_{1x }As/GaAs singlequantum well (SQW) with well width ranging between 3 nm and 7 nm at 80 K. Numerical calculation within the envelope function framework have been performed to analyze the origin of the optical anisotropic forbidden transition. Detailed theoryexperiment comparisons show that the anisotropic forbidden transition can be mainly attributed to indium (In) segregation effect. Besides, the effect of uniaxial strain on inplane optical anisotropy (IPOA) is also investigated. It is found that, the IPOA of the forbidden transition nearly does not change with strain, while that of the allowed transition shows a linear dependence on strain. Finally, an interpretation of the IPOA by perturbation theory is given out.
Samples and experiments
A series of In_{0}._{2}Ga_{0}._{8}As/GaAs SQW with different well widths were grown on (001) semiinsulating GaAs by molecular beam epitaxy. The SQW was sandwiched between two thick GaAs layers. The nominal well widths of the three samples were 3, 5, and 7 nm, respectively. All epilayers were intentionally undoped. The setup of our RDS, described in Ref. [13], is almost the same as Aspnes et al. [14], except the position of the monochromator. The relative reflectance difference between [110] and [11 0] directions, defined by Δr/r = 2(r _{110}  r _{11 0})/(r _{[110]} + r _{[11 0]}), was measured by RDS at 80 K. Here r _{[110]} (r _{[11 0]}) is the reflective index in the [110] ([11 0]) direction. We also did the reflectance measurements, and thus obtained the ΔR/R spectra. Here R is the reflectivity of the sample and ΔR is the reflectivity difference between samples with and without QW layer.
Here J _{0} is the deformation at the strip center, h is the thickness and 2a is the length of the strip. The relative reflectance difference between the [110] and [11 0] directions at the center of the strip (3 × 4 mm^{2}) is measured by RDS at room temperature.
Results and discussion
Experimental results
Models and calculation results
for the basis 3/2, 3/ 2 > , 3/ 2, 1/2 > , 3/2, 1/2 > , 3/ 2, 3/2 > , 1/2, 1/2 > , and 1/ 2, 1/2 >. Here b and D are the BirPikus deformation potentials, F is the electric field along the z direction, d _{14} is the piezoelectric constant, ϵ _{ ij } denotes the symmetric strain tensor, P _{1} (P _{2}) is the lower (upper) interface potential parameter describing the effect of C _{2ν} interface symmetry [2], l _{1} (l _{2}) is the In segregation length in the lower (upper) interface, and z = ±w/2 is the location of the interfaces of QW. The interface potential parameter P _{1} and P _{2} are equal for a symmetric QW, and anisotropic interface roughness will make them unequal [4]. According to the model suggested in Ref. [19], we assume that the segregation lengths on the two interfaces are equal, i.e., l _{1} = l _{2}.
In order to estimate the value of builtin electric field, we perform photoreflectance measurements. However, no FranzKeldysh oscillations presents, which can be attributed to the fact that the layers are all intentionally undoped and the residual doping is very low. Thus, the residual electric field is weak enough to be neglected.
here Γ is the linewidth of the transition, and E _{ nm } (P _{ nm } ) is the transition energy (probability) between n e and m lh or between n e and m hh. In the calculation, the adopted Luttinger parameters are: γ _{1} = 6.85, γ _{2} = 1.9, γ _{3} = 2.93 for GaAs, and γ _{1} = 21.0, γ _{2} = 8.3, γ _{3} = 9.2 for InAs. The bandoffset is taken as Qc = 0.64 [20], and the strainfree In_{ x } Ga_{1x }As band gap at 80 and 300 K are taken from Refs. [20] and [21], respectively. The other band parameters are got from Ref. [22]. The anisotropic transition probability ΔM is proportional to Δr/r. Therefore, we can compare the theoretical calculated ΔM with experimental data Δr/r, and thus to find out the reason responsible for the observed strong anisotropic forbidden transitions. It is noteworthy that even under zero uniaxial strain, there will still be residual anisotropic strain exists, which may be due to a preferred distribution of In atoms [23]. In the following, we will discuss the interface potential, segregation and anisotropic strain effect separately.
We should first estimate the value of interface potential parameter, denoted as P _{0}. So far, there are four theoretical models estimating the value of P _{0}: boundary conditions (BC) model by Ivchenko [17], perturbed interface potential model (called "H _{ BF } ") by Krebs [3], averaged hybrid energy (AHE) difference of interfaces model and lattice mismatch model by Chen [24]. Given that BC model is equivalent to H _{ BF } model, we need to consider only one of them [24]. Thus using H _{ BF } , AHE and lattice mismatch model and then adding them up, we obtain the value of P _{0} is about 600 meV Å.
If there is only anisotropic strain effect in the QW (i.e., P _{1} = P _{2} = P _{0}, l = 0), only one free parameter ϵ _{ xy } can be fitted to the experimental data. The fitting result is shown in Figure 5b. The ϵ _{ xy } value we adopt is 0.003 × ϵ _{ xx } =  4.24 × 10^{5}. Again, there is no forbidden transition presents. Therefore, the observed anisotropic forbidden transition cannot be attributed to anisotropic strain effect.
If there is only atomic segregation effect (i.e., P _{1} = P _{2} = P _{0}, ϵ _{ xy } = 0), one can fit free parameter l to the experimental data. The fitting result is shown in Figure 5c. The fitted segregation length l is 1.8 nm, which is in reasonable agreement with that reported in Ref. [19]. Apparently, the segregation effect will lead to a strong IPOA for the forbidden transition 1e2hh, but do not change its average transition probability, which is still very small. Besides, for the sample with well width 3 nm, a strong IPOA is also present for the transition 1e1lh. Therefore, the observed anisotropic forbidden transition is closely related to In atomic segregation effect.
From Figure 5c, we can see that, if there is only segregation effect, the sign of the transition 1e1hh is negative, which is not consistent with the experiment. Therefore, there must be some other effect existing, such as anisotropic interface structures or anisotropic strain effect. When we take both the anisotropic strain and segregation effect into account, the calculated results are not consistent with the experimental data. However, the results obtained by both the anisotropic interface structure and the segregation effect are in reasonable agreement with the experiment, as shown in Figure 5d. In the calculation, we adopt interface parameter P _{1} = 595 meV Å, P _{2} = 775 meV Å, and the segregation length l = 1.8 nm. The obtained interface potential difference ΔP/P _{0} is about 30%, which is much larger than that obtained in GaAs/Al_{ x } Ga_{1x }As QW (about 6%) [4]. The reason may be that lattice mismatch will enhance the interface asymmetry of the QWs.
Interpretation of IPOA by perturbation theory
Here 〈1EnH〉 is the overlap integral between the first electron and the n th heavyhole states. 〈1HR(z)1L〉 is the holemixing strength between 1H and 1L. E _{1L } E _{ nH } is the energy separation between 1L and nH. It can bee seen that, ΔM is directly proportional to the coupling strength of holes and inversely proportional to their energy separation. For the three samples, there is little difference in the term R(z). However, E _{1L }  E _{2H }of the sample with 3 nm well width is smaller than that of the other samples, which results in much stronger IPOA.
in which the first integral is nearly a constant, and 〈1L2H〉 〈2H1E〉 is mainly determined by the segregation effect and interface potential. Therefore, for the forbidden transition 1e2hh, the change of IPOA induced by a weak uniaxial strain (in the order of 10^{5}) will be too weak to be observed in experiment. However, for the allowed transitions, such as 1e1hh, the strain will also couple 1H and 1L, and will remarkably change the IPOA. From Figure 3 we can see that the RD intensity of transition 1e1lh does not show significant change as the strain increases. The reason may be that the lighthole band configuration is weak type I for the current alloy composition [20], which result in the change of the potential has little influence on its wave function.
Conclusion
We have observed strong anisotropic forbidden transition in a series of In_{0}._{2}Ga_{0}._{8}As/GaAs SQW with well width ranging between 3 nm and 7 nm at 80 K. Using a 6 band K · P theory, we have calculated the optical anisotropy induced by interface composition profile due to In segregation, anisotropic interface structures and anisotropic strain. It is found that the observed anisotropic forbidden transition can be mainly attributed to the In segregation effect. Besides, the effect of uniaxial strain on IPOA is also investigated. It is found that the IPOA of the forbidden transition changes little with strain, while that of the allowed transition shows a linear dependence on strain. Finally, an interpretation of IPOA by perturbation theory is also given out.
Abbreviations
 AHE:

averaged hybrid energy
 BC:

boundary conditions
 In:

indium
 IPOA:

inplane optical anisotropy
 SQW:

singlequantum well
 SRE:

symmetry reduction effect
 PR:

photoreflectance
 QW:

quantum well
 RDS:

reflectancedifference spectroscopy.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the 973 program (2006CB604908, 2006CB921607), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (60625402, 60990313).
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Chen YH, Yang Z, Wang ZG, Bo X, Liang JB: Quantumwell anisotropic forbidden transitions induced by a commonatom interface potential. Phys Rev B 1999, 60: 1783. 10.1103/PhysRevB.60.1783View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chen YH, Ye XL, Wang JZ, Wang ZG, Yang Z: Interfacerelated inplane optical anisotropy in GaAs/Al _{ x } Ga _{ 1 x } As singlequantumwell structures studied by reflectance difference spectroscopy. Phys Rev B 2002, 66: 195321. 10.1103/PhysRevB.66.195321View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Krebs O, Voisin P: Giant optical anisotropy of semiconductor heterostructures with no common atom and the quantumconfined pockels effect. Phys Rev Lett 1996, 77: 1829. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1829View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Tang CG, Chen YH, Xu B, Ye XL, Wang ZG: Wellwidth dependence of inplane optical anisotropy in (001) GaAs/AlGaAs quantum wells induced by inplane uniaxial strain and interface asymmetry. J Appl Phys 2009, 105: 103108. 10.1063/1.3132089View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Voon L: Inplane birefringence of asymmetric (001) quantum wells. Appl Phys Lett 1997, 70: 2446. 10.1063/1.118852View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ye XL, Chen YH, Xu B, Wang ZG: Detection of indium segregation effects in InGaAs/GaAs quantum wells using reflectancedifference spectrometry. Mater Sci Eng B 2002, 91: 62. 10.1016/S09215107(01)009710View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kwok SH, Grahn HT, Ploog K, Merlin R: Giant electropleochroism in GaAs(Al, Ga)As as heterostructures  the quantumwell pockels effect. Phys Rev Lett 1992, 69: 973. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.973View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Rau G, Glanfield AR, Klipstein PC, Johnson NF, Smith GW: Optical properties of GaAs/Al _{ 1 x } Ga _{ x } As quantum wells subjected to large inplane uniaxial stress. Phys Rev B 1999, 60: 1900. 10.1103/PhysRevB.60.1900View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zhu BF, Chang YC: Inversion asymmetry, hole mixing, and enhanced Pockels effect in quantum wells and superlattices. Phys Rev B 1994, 50: 11932. 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.11932View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shen H, Wraback M, Pamulapati J, Newman PG, Dutta M, Lu Y, Kuo HC: Optical anisotropy in GaAs/Al _{ x } Ga _{ 1 x } As multiplequantum wells under thermallyinduced uniaxial strain. Phys Rev B 1993, 47: 13933. 10.1103/PhysRevB.47.13933View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Tang CG, Chen YH, Ye XL, Wang ZG, Zhang WF: Straininduced inplane optical anisotropy in (001) GaAs/AlGaAs superlattice studied by reflectance difference spectroscopy. J Appl Phys 2006, 100: 113122. 10.1063/1.2399308View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Wang DP, Chen CT, Kuan H, Shei SC, Su YK: Study on symmetry forbidden transitions in an In _{ x } Ga _{ 1 x } As/GaAs singlequantumwell by temperaturedependence. J Appl Phys 1995, 77: 6500. 10.1063/1.359058View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chen YH, Ye XL, Xu B, Wang ZG: Strong inplane optical anisotropy of asymmetric (001) quantum wells. J Appl Phys 2006, 99: 096102. 10.1063/1.2192150View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Aspnes DE, Harbison JP, Studna AA, Florez LT: Application of reflectance difference spectroscopy to molecularbeam epitaxy growth of GaAs and AlAs. J Vac Sci Technol A 1988, 6: 1327. 10.1116/1.575694View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Papadimitriou D, Richter W: Highly sensitive strain detection in silicon by reflectance anisotropy spectroscopy. Phys Rev B 2005, 72: 07512. 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.075212View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Liarokapis E, Papadimitriou D, Rumberg J, Richter W: Raman and RAS measurements on uniaxially strained thin semiconductor layers. Phys Status Solidi B 1999, 211: 309. 10.1002/(SICI)15213951(199901)211:1<309::AIDPSSB309>3.0.CO;2WView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ivchenko EL, Kaminski AY, Rossler U: Heavylight hole mixing at zincblende (001) interfaces under normal incidence. Phys Rev B 1996, 54: 5852. 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.5852View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chao CYP, Chuang SL: Spinorbitcoupling effects on the valenceband structure of strained semiconductor quantum wells. Phys Rev B 1992, 46: 4110. 10.1103/PhysRevB.46.4110View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Muraki K, Fukatsu S, Shiraki Y, Ito R: Surface segregation of In atoms during molecularbeam epitaxy and its influence on the energylevels in InGaAs/GaAs quantumwells. Appl Phys Lett 1992, 61: 557. 10.1063/1.107835View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Leymarie J, Monier C, Vasson A, Vasson AM, Leroux M, Courboules B, Grandjean N, Deparis C, Massies J: Optical investigations in (In, Ga)As/GaAs quantumwells grown by metalorganic molecularbeam epitaxy. Phys Rev B 1995, 51: 13274. 10.1103/PhysRevB.51.13274View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Arent DJ, Deneffe K, Vanhoof C, Deboeck J, Borghs G: Strain effects and band offsets in GaAs/InGaAs strained layered quantum structures. J Appl Phys 1989, 66: 1739. 10.1063/1.344395View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Vurgaftman I, Meyer JR, RamMohan LR: Band parameters for IIIV compound semiconductors and their alloys. J Appl Phys 2001, 89: 5815. 10.1063/1.1368156View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Yu JL, Chen YH, Ye XL, Jiang CY, Jia CH: Inplane optical anisotropy in GaAsN/GaAs singlequantum well investigated by reflectancedifference spectroscopy. J Appl Phys 2010, 108: 013516. 10.1063/1.3457901View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chen YH, Wang ZG, Yang ZY: A new interface anisotropic potential of zincblende semiconductor interface induced by lattice mismatch. Chin Phys Lett 1999, 16: 56. 10.1088/0256307X/16/1/020View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.