<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE art SYSTEM 'http://www.biomedcentral.com/xml/article.dtd'>
<art>
	<ui>1556-276X-7-289</ui>
	<ji>1556-276X</ji>
	<fm>
		<dochead>Nano Express</dochead>
		<bibl>
			<title>
				<p>Substrate effects on the strain relaxation in GaN/AlN short-period superlattices</p>
			</title>
			<aug>
				<au id="A1"><snm>Kladko</snm><fnm>Vasyl</fnm><insr iid="I1"/><email>kladko@isp.kiev.ua</email></au>
				<au id="A2"><snm>Kuchuk</snm><fnm>Andrian</fnm><insr iid="I1"/><email>kuchuk@isp.kiev.ua</email></au>
				<au id="A3"><snm>Lytvyn</snm><fnm>Petro</fnm><insr iid="I1"/><email>plyt@isp.kiev.ua</email></au>
				<au id="A4"><snm>Yefanov</snm><fnm>Olexandr</fnm><insr iid="I1"/><email>efa@hotbox.ru</email></au>
				<au id="A5"><snm>Safriuk</snm><fnm>Nadiya</fnm><insr iid="I1"/><email>safriuk@isp.kiev.ua</email></au>
				<au id="A6"><snm>Belyaev</snm><fnm>Alexander</fnm><insr iid="I1"/><email>belyaev@isp.kiev.ua</email></au>
				<au id="A7" ca="yes"><snm>Mazur</snm><mi>I</mi><fnm>Yuriy</fnm><insr iid="I2"/><email>ymazur@uark.edu</email></au>
				<au id="A8"><snm>DeCuir</snm><mi>A</mi><fnm>Eric</fnm><suf>Jr</suf><insr iid="I2"/><email>edecuir@uark.edu</email></au>
				<au id="A9"><snm>Ware</snm><mi>E</mi><fnm>Morgan</fnm><insr iid="I2"/><email>meware@uark.edu</email></au>
				<au id="A10"><snm>Salamo</snm><mi>J</mi><fnm>Gregory</fnm><insr iid="I2"/><email>salamo@uark.edu</email></au>
			</aug>
			<insg>
				<ins id="I1"><p>V. Lashkaryov Institute of Semiconductor Physics, National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kyiv, 03028, Ukraine</p></ins>
				<ins id="I2"><p>Department of Physics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA</p></ins>
			</insg>
			<source>Nanoscale Research Letters</source>
			<issn>1556-276X</issn>
			<pubdate>2012</pubdate>
			<volume>7</volume>
			<issue>1</issue>
			<fpage>289</fpage>
			<url>http://www.nanoscalereslett.com/content/7/1/289</url>
			<xrefbib><pubidlist><pubid idtype="doi">10.1186/1556-276X-7-289</pubid><pubid idtype="pmpid">22672771</pubid></pubidlist></xrefbib>
		</bibl>
		<history><rec><date><day>6</day><month>4</month><year>2012</year></date></rec><acc><date><day>24</day><month>5</month><year>2012</year></date></acc><pub><date><day>6</day><month>6</month><year>2012</year></date></pub></history>
		<cpyrt><year>2012</year><collab>Kladko et al.; licensee Springer.</collab><note>This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (<url>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0</url>), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</note></cpyrt>
		<abs>
			<sec>
				<st>
					<p>Abstract</p>
				</st><p>We present a comparative study of the strain relaxation of GaN/AlN short-period superlattices (SLs) grown on two different III-nitride substrates introducing different amounts of compensating strain into the films. We grow by plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy (0001)-oriented SLs on a GaN buffer deposited on GaN(thick)-on-sapphire template and on AlN(thin)-on-sapphire template. The <it>ex-situ</it> analysis of strain, crack formation, dislocation density, and microstructure of the SL layers has established that the mechanism of strain relaxation in these structures depends on the residual strain in substrate and is determined mainly by the lattice mismatch between layers. For growth on the AlN film, the compensating strain introduced by this film on the layer prevented cracking; however, the densities of surface pits and dislocations were increased as compared with growth on the GaN template. Three-dimensional growth of the GaN cap layer in samples with pseudomorphly grown SLs on the AlN template is observed. At the same time, two-dimensional step-flow growth of the cap layer was observed for structures with non-pseudomorphly grown SLs on the GaN template with a significant density of large cracks appearing on the surface. The growth mode of the GaN cap layer is predefined by relaxation degree of top SL layers.</p>
			</sec>
		</abs>
	</fm>
	<bdy>
		<sec>
			<st>
				<p>Background</p>
			</st><p>Superlattices (SLs) made of GaN and Al(Ga)N have great potential as active elements in many optoelectronic devices, which cover the spectral regions from ultraviolet to infrared <abbrgrp>
					<abbr bid="B1">1</abbr>
					<abbr bid="B2">2</abbr>
				</abbrgrp>. However, the available technology for creating high-quality devices based on these SLs is far from desirable. The lattice mismatch between the GaN quantum well (QW) and the AlN barrier (2.5% in-plane) as well as between the SL and the substrate leads to complicated processes of strain relaxation in these structures, and thus a high density of defects (dislocations, cracks, etc.) and uncontrolled strain-induced modifications of the bandgap profile (the piezoelectric effect). Undesirable changes of the optical and electrical properties of devices made from these SLs result and potentially lead to their degradation. Therefore, there has been significant research devoted to the study of the deformation and relaxation processes in GaN/Al(Ga)N SLs in recent years. These include studies of the influence of growth conditions on the structural quality of GaN/Al(Ga)N SLs grown by different methods. It was shown in <abbrgrp>
					<abbr bid="B2">2</abbr>
				</abbrgrp> that for short-period GaN/Al(Ga)N SLs, where control of layer thickness is the key, plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy (PAMBE) is optimal due to the relatively low growth temperature. Regardless of growth temperature, the SL properties seem to be directly tied to the substrate on which they are grown due to the residual strain in the film. However, there have been very few studies reported regarding the substrate effects on structural quality of GaN/AlN short-period SLs <abbrgrp>
					<abbr bid="B3">3</abbr>
					<abbr bid="B4">4</abbr>
					<abbr bid="B5">5</abbr>
					<abbr bid="B6">6</abbr>
					<abbr bid="B7">7</abbr>
				</abbrgrp>. In particular, in <abbrgrp>
					<abbr bid="B3">3</abbr>
				</abbrgrp>, it was shown that Ga-face GaN/AlN SLs on AlN-on-sapphire have higher structural quality than N-face GaN/AlN SLs on C-face 4&#8201;H-SiC substrates.</p><p>&#1040; systematic study of the effect of growth and design parameters on the performance of Si-doped GaN/AlN SLs was made in <abbrgrp>
					<abbr bid="B4">4</abbr>
				</abbrgrp>. It was shown, that the best optical performance is found in samples synthesized with a moderate Ga excess during the growth of both the GaN QWs and the AlN barriers without growth interruptions. This was subsequently used for growths in <abbrgrp>
					<abbr bid="B5">5</abbr>
					<abbr bid="B6">6</abbr>
					<abbr bid="B7">7</abbr>
				</abbrgrp> where detailed studies of strain relaxation in GaN/AlN short-period SLs were made in. In these works, through <it>in-situ</it> measurements of the in-plane lattice parameter, a periodic modulation of the strain relaxation within the SLs was demonstrated, which is explained by elastic phenomenon related to the stress induced by the Ga excess adlayer. It was shown in <abbrgrp>
					<abbr bid="B5">5</abbr>
				</abbrgrp> that the final strain state of the SLs, reached after 10 to 20 periods, is independent of the substrate. However, the mechanism that describes how the different substrates allow for the SLs to relax to the same level is not described. These <it>in-situ</it> results notwithstanding, there is no quantitative comparison here <abbrgrp>
					<abbr bid="B6">6</abbr>
					<abbr bid="B7">7</abbr>
				</abbrgrp> of the strain during growth with that after growth which would have a more direct impact on device performance.</p><p>Despite these results, many questions about the growth and relaxation of such SLs are still unresolved. In particular, there is no analysis of the lattice mismatch between the overall GaN/AlN SL and the substrate (buffer). This can be established by comparing the average lattice constant of the SL, determined through the ratio of layer thicknesses in the SL (<it>t</it>
				<sub>GaN</sub>/<it>t</it>
				<sub>AlN</sub>), with the lattice constant of the buffer layer. Also, ultimately, doing this <it>ex&#8208;situ</it> allows us to understand what residual effects there will be on the strain gradients, the bandgap, and in turn the optical and electrical properties of the material.</p><p>In this paper, we present a study of the effects of residual stress in a GaN buffer layer on the strain relaxation mechanisms in GaN/AlN SLs. The deformation of this buffer layer can be influenced by many sources, such as (a) thickness and growth conditions, (b) the type of template and/or substrate on which it is grown, and (c) the doping level <abbrgrp>
					<abbr bid="B7">7</abbr>
				</abbrgrp>. Here, we focus on the second source (b) and compare SL growth on two different types of templates: thick GaN-on-sapphire and thin AlN-on-sapphire. In this article, we present a detailed study of the <it>ex-situ</it> depth profiles of the in-plane strain and the resulting structure of the GaN/AlN SLs, examining crack formation and dislocation density, and the analysis of thermal deformation and its correlation with deformation due to the lattice mismatch. We use nondestructive, large-area methods based on high-resolution X-ray diffraction (HRXRD) using a standard, lab-based diffractometer and atomic force microscopy (AFM).</p>
		</sec>
		<sec>
			<st>
				<p>Methods</p>
			</st><p>The samples investigated here were grown by PAMBE at a substrate temperature of <it>T</it>
				<sub>gr.</sub> = 760&#176;C, under an activated nitrogen plasma flux which is calibrated to grow in a nitrogen limited regime with a growth rate of 0.26 monolayer/s. The SLs (intersubband detector device structures <abbrgrp>
					<abbr bid="B8">8</abbr>
				</abbrgrp>) were grown on a buffer layer consisting of a 224-nm undoped GaN layer and a 180-nm Si-doped GaN layer for a bottom electrical contact. This was followed by 30 periods of Si-doped GaN/AlN(1.98/1.98&#8201;nm) SLs and finally by a 180-nm Si-doped GaN cap layer for a top electrical contact. The Si doping level was&#8201;2&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>18</sup>&#8201;cm<sup>&#8722;3</sup>. In order to study the influence of residual stress in the buffer layer on strain relaxation in the SL, two template types were used. SL sample (S1) was grown on a GaN(5&#8201;&#956;m)-on-sapphire template, and SL sample (S2) was grown on an AlN(340&#8201;nm)-on-sapphire template. The samples were examined <it>ex&#8208;situ</it> using an HRXRD PANalytical X&#8217;Pert Pro MRD XL (X&#8217;Pert, PANalytical B.V., Almelo, The Netherlands) and AFM NanoScope IIIa Dimension 3000<sup>TM</sup> (Digital Instruments, Inc., Tonowanda, NY, USA).</p>
		</sec>
		<sec>
			<st>
				<p>Results and discussion</p>
			</st>
			<sec>
				<st>
					<p>Results</p>
				</st><p>To get information about the structural quality and the deformation state of the samples by HRXRD, a wide range of reciprocal space was examined. Data were taken from both symmetric (0002) and asymmetric (11&#8211;24), (12&#8211;33), and (10&#8211;15) GaN reflections. In order to compare the reciprocal space maps (RSMs) measured for different samples, the measurements should be performed in absolute coordinates in reciprocal space. Therefore, the samples were carefully aligned with respect to the incident beam. The simplest way to accomplish this task with a laboratory source is by using sharp reciprocal lattice points (RLPs) of the substrate as references. We used the sapphire RLPs (0006) and (41&#8211;56) to fix the absolute reciprocal coordinates for both samples.</p><p>Figure <figr fid="F1">1</figr>a,b shows the asymmetric RSMs around the (12&#8211;33) GaN reflection for samples S1 and S2, respectively. Due to a shallow incidence angle of <it>&#945;</it>&#8201;approximately&#8201;0.9&#176;, this reflection allows for the separation of the peaks from all of the various layers in our samples: the GaN buffer, the GaN cap, the superlattice 0th satellite, and the AlN template layers. The asymmetric diffraction geometry can also determine the tilt and the lateral correlation length (<it>D</it>
					<sub>lateral</sub>) of mosaic blocks, as they broaden the RLP in different directions (see inset in Figure <figr fid="F1">1</figr>a): <it>D</it>
					<sub>lateral</sub> broadens the peak perpendicular to <it>Q</it>
					<sub>z</sub>; tilt broadens the peak perpendicular to the diffraction vector (<inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i1" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:mover>
      <m:mi mathvariant="bold">H</m:mi>
      <m:mo>&#8594;</m:mo>
   </m:mover>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>), and their superposition leads to an intermediate orientation of the broadened RLP ellipses in the plane (<it>Q</it>
					<sub>z</sub>, <it>Q</it>
					<sub>&#1093;</sub>) <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B9">9</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>.</p>
				<fig id="F1"><title><p>Figure 1</p></title><caption><p>RSMs around the (12&#8211;33) GaN reflection of samples S1 (a) and S2 (b)</p></caption><text>
   <p><b>RSMs around the (12&#8211;33) GaN reflection of samples S1 (a) and S2 (b).</b> Inset of (<b>a</b>) illustrates the influence of mosaicity parameters (lateral correlation length (<it>D</it><sub>lateral</sub>) and tilt (<inline-formula><m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i2" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msub>
   <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
   <m:mtext mathvariant="normal">tilt</m:mtext>
</m:msub>
</m:math></inline-formula>) of blocks) on RLPs. Inset of (<b>b</b>) illustrates the scheme of fully strained and totally relaxed layer (L) on substrate (S) in reciprocal space. The solid and dashed lines between RS points are guides to the eye which indicate the in-plane strain state of the SLs. <it>Q</it><sub>z</sub> and <it>Q</it><sub>x</sub> are the reciprocal space coordinates, which are perpendicular and parallel to the surface, respectively.</p>
</text><graphic file="1556-276X-7-289-1"/></fig><p>For the S1 structure, the orientation of the RLP ellipse for the GaN template layer is perpendicular to the diffraction vector. This indicates that the dominant contribution to its broadening is tilt, while the primary contribution to the broadening of the GaN cap and the SL in general is due to a finite lateral correlation length, <it>D</it>
					<sub>lateral</sub>. For the S2 structure, <it>D</it>
					<sub>lateral</sub> broadening dominates for the RLPs of all layers.</p><p>The broadening effects of lateral correlation length and tilt can also be separated using a single RSM of an asymmetric reflection <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B9">9</abbr>
						<abbr bid="B10">10</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>. The tilt describes the rotation of the mosaic blocks out of the growth plane. The model of mosaic crystals has been applied several times to III-nitride epilayers <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B11">11</abbr>
						<abbr bid="B12">12</abbr>
						<abbr bid="B13">13</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>. According to <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B12">12</abbr>
						<abbr bid="B13">13</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>, the tilt of (0001)-oriented GaN(AlN) layers can be correlated to the density of screw threading dislocations with Burgers vector <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i3" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:mover>
      <m:mi mathvariant="bold">b</m:mi>
      <m:mo>&#8594;</m:mo>
   </m:mover>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>
					<it>=</it> [0001]. Threading dislocation densities, <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i4" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msub>
   <m:mi>N</m:mi>
   <m:mtext mathvariant="normal">screw</m:mtext>
</m:msub>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>, (screw-type) in III-nitrides materials can be extracted from the tilts, <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i5" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msub>
   <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
   <m:mtext mathvariant="normal">tilt</m:mtext>
</m:msub>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>, using the formula <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B13">13</abbr>
						<abbr bid="B14">14</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>:</p><p>
					<display-formula id="M1">
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i6" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:msub>
      <m:mi>N</m:mi>
      <m:mtext mathvariant="normal">screw</m:mtext>
   </m:msub>
   <m:mo>=</m:mo>
   <m:mfrac>
      <m:mrow>
         <m:msub>
            <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
            <m:mtext mathvariant="normal">tilt</m:mtext>
         </m:msub>
         <m:msup>
            <m:mrow/>
            <m:mn>2</m:mn>
         </m:msup>
      </m:mrow>
      <m:mrow>
         <m:mn>4.35</m:mn>
         <m:mo>&#183;</m:mo>
         <m:mrow>
            <m:mover>
               <m:msup>
                  <m:mtext>b</m:mtext>
                  <m:mtext>2</m:mtext>
               </m:msup>
               <m:mo>&#8594;</m:mo>
            </m:mover>
         </m:mrow>
      </m:mrow>
   </m:mfrac>
   <m:mtext>,</m:mtext>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</display-formula>
				</p><p>where <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i7" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:mover>
      <m:mi mathvariant="bold">b</m:mi>
      <m:mo>&#8594;</m:mo>
   </m:mover>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> is the corresponding Burgers vector (<it>b</it> = 0.5185&#8201;nm for screw dislocations).</p><p>The values obtained for <it>D</it>
					<sub>lateral</sub>, <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i8" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msub>
   <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
   <m:mtext mathvariant="normal">tilt</m:mtext>
</m:msub>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>, and <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i9" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msub>
   <m:mi>N</m:mi>
   <m:mtext mathvariant="normal">screw</m:mtext>
</m:msub>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> for the separate layers of both samples S1 and S2 are presented in Table <tblr tid="T1">1</tblr>. In the calculation of dislocation density, the effect of secondary broadening due to sample bending <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B15">15</abbr>
					</abbrgrp> is taken into account. The twist of the mosaic blocks, from which one can calculate the edge-type dislocation densities, could not be measured due to the weak XRD reflection of non-coplanar reflections for the SLs of these structures.</p>
				<table id="T1">
					<title>
						<p>Table 1</p>
					</title>
					<caption>
						<p>
							<b>Structural parameters for layers of S1 and S2 samples, obtained from RSMs</b>
						</p>
					</caption>
					<tgroup align="left" cols="7">
						<colspec align="left" colname="c1" colnum="1" colwidth="1*"/>
						<colspec align="char" colname="c2" colnum="2" colwidth="1*"/>
						<colspec align="char" colname="c3" colnum="3" colwidth="1*"/>
						<colspec align="char" colname="c4" colnum="4" colwidth="1*"/>
						<colspec align="char" colname="c5" colnum="5" colwidth="1*"/>
						<colspec align="char" colname="c6" colnum="6" colwidth="1*"/>
						<colspec align="char" colname="c7" colnum="7" colwidth="1*"/>
						<thead valign="top">
							<row rowsep="1">
								<entry colname="c1" morerows="1" valign="top">
									<p>
										<b>Sample</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c2" nameend="c4" namest="c2">
									<p>
										<b>S1</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c5" nameend="c7" namest="c5">
									<p>
										<b>S2</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
							</row>
							<row rowsep="1">
								<entry align="center" colname="c2">
									<p>
										<b>GaN</b>
										<sub>
											<b>templ./buf.</b>
										</sub>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c3">
									<p>
										<b>SL</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c4">
									<p>
										<b>GaN</b>
										<sub>
											<b>cap</b>
										</sub>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c5">
									<p>
										<b>AlN</b>
										<sub>
											<b>templ.</b>
										</sub>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c6">
									<p>
										<b>SL</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c7">
									<p>
										<b>GaN</b>
										<sub>
											<b>buf./cap</b>
										</sub>
									</p>
								</entry>
							</row>
						</thead>
						<tbody valign="top">
							<row>
								<entry colname="c1">
									<p>
										<it>D</it>
										<sub>lateral</sub> (nm)</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c2">
									<p>700&#8201;&#177;&#8201;20</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c3">
									<p>180&#8201;&#177;&#8201;28</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c4">
									<p>208&#8201;&#177;&#8201;8</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c5">
									<p>130&#8201;&#177;&#8201;10</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c6">
									<p>171&#8201;&#177;&#8201;10</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c7">
									<p>198&#8201;&#177;&#8201;20</p>
								</entry>
							</row>
							<row>
								<entry colname="c1">
									<p>
										<inline-formula>
											<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i10" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msub>
   <m:mi mathvariant="normal">&#945;</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>tilt</m:mtext>
</m:msub>
</m:math>
										</inline-formula> (degrees)</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c2">
									<p>0.028&#8201;&#177;&#8201;0.003</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c3">
									<p>0.121&#8201;&#177;&#8201;0.05</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c4">
									<p>0.083&#8201;&#177;&#8201;0.014</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c5">
									<p>0.148&#8201;&#177;&#8201;0.014</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c6">
									<p>0.115&#8201;&#177;&#8201;0.005</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c7">
									<p>0.101&#8201;&#177;&#8201;0.011</p>
								</entry>
							</row>
							<row rowsep="1">
								<entry colname="c1">
									<p>
										<inline-formula>
											<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i11" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow/>
</m:math>
										</inline-formula>
										<it>N</it>screw (cm<sup>2</sup>)</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c2">
									<p>2.3&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>7</sup>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c3">
									<p>3.8&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>8</sup>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c4">
									<p>1.9&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>8</sup>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c5">
									<p>5.7&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>8</sup>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c6">
									<p>3.4&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>8</sup>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c7">
									<p>2.7&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>8</sup>
									</p>
								</entry>
							</row>
						</tbody>
					</tgroup>
				</table><p>Asymmetric RSMs also give information about the lattice parameters of the individual layers, both along the surface and in the growth direction, and thus, their analysis tells us about the degree of relaxation of each layer (see inset of Figure <figr fid="F1">1</figr>b). For RLPs from a fully strained epitaxial structure (pseudomorphic growth), the intensity of coherent scattering from the substrate and the layers (SL satellites) is distributed in the scattering plane, vertically aligned with each other along the surface normal. In the case of fully relaxed epitaxial structures, the RLPs must be located along the diffraction vector, <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i12" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:mover>
      <m:mi mathvariant="bold">H</m:mi>
      <m:mo>&#8594;</m:mo>
   </m:mover>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> Also, for the general case of non-pseudomorphic growth of partly relaxed structures, the RLPs occupy an intermediate position between the surface normal and the diffraction vector. For sample S2, the RLPs of the GaN-buffer, the SL, and the GaN cap are located on the surface normal; therefore, there was no relaxation between them, and the heterojunctions are coherent (pseudomorphic growth). For sample S1, the arrangement of RLPs indicates non-pseudomorphic growth of the SL on the GaN buffer and even some additional relaxation of the GaN cap with respect to the SL. Despite this, both SLs have comparable, final, or residual deformation levels (see dashed lines in Figure <figr fid="F1">1</figr>).</p><p>In addition to the structural quality of the material, our analysis provides a measure of the film growth parameters. We have obtained the thicknesses of the layers of the SL (<it>t</it>
					<sub>GaN</sub> and <it>t</it>
					<sub>AlN</sub>) using the lattice parameters of the layers received from the RSMs and simulations of the HRXRD <it>&#969;</it>/2<it>&#952;</it> scan of the SLs around symmetrical (0002) reflections (not shown here) using the method described previously <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B16">16</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>. As seen in Table <tblr tid="T2">2</tblr>, the actual thicknesses of the SL layers differ substantially from their nominal thicknesses (determined by the calibrated growth parameters). This can be explained by thermally activated and strain-depended exchange between the Al ad-atoms and the Ga atoms from the GaN SL layers. This is described in detail in <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B17">17</abbr>
						<abbr bid="B18">18</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>.</p>
				<table id="T2">
					<title>
						<p>Table 2</p>
					</title>
					<caption>
						<p>
							<b>Structural parameters of S1 and S2 samples obtained from the XRD and AFM data</b>
						</p>
					</caption>
					<tgroup align="left" cols="7">
						<colspec align="left" colname="c1" colnum="1" colwidth="1*"/>
						<colspec align="left" colname="c2" colnum="2" colwidth="1*"/>
						<colspec align="char" colname="c3" colnum="3" colwidth="1*"/>
						<colspec align="left" colname="c4" colnum="4" colwidth="1*"/>
						<colspec align="left" colname="c5" colnum="5" colwidth="1*"/>
						<colspec align="left" colname="c6" colnum="6" colwidth="1*"/>
						<colspec align="left" colname="c7" colnum="7" colwidth="1*"/>
						<thead valign="top">
							<row rowsep="1">
								<entry colname="c1" morerows="1" valign="top">
									<p>
										<b>Sample</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="center" colname="c2" nameend="c3" namest="c2">
									<p>
										<b>
											<it>t</it>
										</b>
										<sub>
											<b>GaN</b>
										</sub><b>/</b><b>
											<it>t</it>
										</b>
										<sub>
											<b>AlN</b>
										</sub><b>(nm)</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c4" morerows="1" valign="top">
									<p>
										<b>
											<it>R</it>
										</b>
										<sub>
											<b>curv.</b>
										</sub><b>(m)</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c5" morerows="1" valign="top">
									<p>
										<b>
											<it>N</it>
										</b>
										<sub>
											<b>pin.</b>
										</sub><b>(&#215;10</b>
										<sup>
											<b>8</b>
										</sup>&#8201;<b>cm</b>
										<sup>
											<b>&#8722;2</b>
										</sup><b>)</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c6" morerows="1" valign="top">
									<p>
										<b>
											<it>N</it>
										</b>
										<sub>
											<b>cr.</b>
										</sub><b>(&#215;10</b>
										<sup>
											<b>3</b>
										</sup>&#8201;<b>cm</b>
										<sup>
											<b>&#8722;1</b>
										</sup><b>)</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c7" morerows="1" valign="top">
									<p>
										<b>
											<it>L</it>
										</b>
										<sub>
											<b>ter.</b>
										</sub><b>(nm)</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
							</row>
							<row rowsep="1">
								<entry colname="c2">
									<p>
										<b>Nominal</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c3">
									<p>
										<b>Actual</b>
									</p>
								</entry>
							</row>
						</thead>
						<tbody valign="top">
							<row>
								<entry colname="c1">
									<p>S1</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c2">
									<p>1.98/1.98</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c3">
									<p>1.70&#8201;&#177;&#8201;0.07/2.30&#8201;&#177;&#8201;0.06</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c4">
									<p>4</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c5">
									<p>0.86</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c6">
									<p>1.5</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c7">
									<p>300</p>
								</entry>
							</row>
							<row rowsep="1">
								<entry colname="c1">
									<p>S2</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c2">
									<p>1.98/1.98</p>
								</entry>
								<entry align="char" char="&#177;" colname="c3">
									<p>1.50&#8201;&#177;&#8201;0.04/2.50&#8201;&#177;&#8201;0.05</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c4">
									<p>10</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c5">
									<p>1.8</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c6">
									<p>None</p>
								</entry>
								<entry colname="c7">
									<p>900</p>
								</entry>
							</row>
						</tbody>
					</tgroup>
				</table><p>Let us consider in more detail the distribution of strain throughout the layers of samples S1 and S2. First, assuming pseudomorphic growth, we compare the experimental results obtained from the RSMs. Figure <figr fid="F2">2</figr>a,b shows the calculated and experimental depth profiles of the in-plane strain for samples S1 and S2, respectively. The theoretical calculation of the in-plane strain, <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i13" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
   <m:mi mathvariant="normal">II</m:mi>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
      <m:mo>(</m:mo>
      <m:mtext>teor</m:mtext>
      <m:mo>.</m:mo>
      <m:mo>)</m:mo>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>, at room temperature (RT) assuming pseudomorphic growth of the SL and cap layers on the GaN buffer is given:</p><p>
					<display-formula id="M2">
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i14" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:msubsup>
      <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
      <m:mi mathvariant="normal">II</m:mi>
      <m:mrow>
         <m:mi mathvariant="normal">RT</m:mi>
         <m:mo stretchy="true">(</m:mo>
         <m:mtext>teor</m:mtext>
         <m:mo>.</m:mo>
         <m:mo stretchy="true">)</m:mo>
      </m:mrow>
   </m:msubsup>
   <m:mo>=</m:mo>
   <m:mfrac>
      <m:mrow>
         <m:msubsup>
            <m:mi>a</m:mi>
            <m:mrow>
               <m:mi mathvariant="normal">Lo</m:mi>
               <m:mo>.</m:mo>
            </m:mrow>
            <m:mi mathvariant="normal">RT</m:mi>
         </m:msubsup>
         <m:mo>&#8722;</m:mo>
         <m:msubsup>
            <m:mi>a</m:mi>
            <m:mi mathvariant="normal">Lo</m:mi>
            <m:mi mathvariant="normal">RT</m:mi>
         </m:msubsup>
      </m:mrow>
      <m:msubsup>
         <m:mi>a</m:mi>
         <m:mi mathvariant="normal">Lo</m:mi>
         <m:mi mathvariant="normal">RT</m:mi>
      </m:msubsup>
   </m:mfrac>
   <m:mtext>,</m:mtext>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</display-formula>
				</p><p>where <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i15" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>a</m:mi>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>Lo</m:mtext>
   </m:mrow>
   <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> is the lattice constant of the buffer, and <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i16" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>a</m:mi>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>Lo</m:mtext>
   </m:mrow>
   <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> is the relaxed lattice constant of each of the subsequent layers. The experimental RT in-plane strain, <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i17" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
   <m:mi mathvariant="normal">II</m:mi>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
      <m:mo stretchy="true">(</m:mo>
      <m:mtext>exp</m:mtext>
      <m:mo>.</m:mo>
      <m:mo stretchy="true">)</m:mo>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>, was calculated using the lattice parameters, <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i18" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:msubsup>
      <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
      <m:mtext>L(meas)</m:mtext>
      <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
   </m:msubsup>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>, of each layer as obtained from the RSMs:</p><p>
					<display-formula id="M3">
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i19" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:msubsup>
      <m:mi mathvariant="normal">&#949;</m:mi>
      <m:mi mathvariant="normal">II</m:mi>
      <m:mrow>
         <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
         <m:mo stretchy="true">(</m:mo>
         <m:mi mathvariant="normal">exp</m:mi>
         <m:mo>.</m:mo>
         <m:mo stretchy="true">)</m:mo>
      </m:mrow>
   </m:msubsup>
   <m:mo>=</m:mo>
   <m:mfrac>
      <m:mrow>
         <m:msubsup>
            <m:mi>a</m:mi>
            <m:mrow>
               <m:mi>L</m:mi>
               <m:mo stretchy="true">(</m:mo>
               <m:mtext>meas</m:mtext>
               <m:mo>.</m:mo>
               <m:mo stretchy="true">)</m:mo>
            </m:mrow>
            <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
         </m:msubsup>
         <m:mo>&#8722;</m:mo>
         <m:msubsup>
            <m:mi>a</m:mi>
            <m:mi>Lo</m:mi>
            <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
         </m:msubsup>
      </m:mrow>
      <m:msubsup>
         <m:mi>a</m:mi>
         <m:mi>Lo</m:mi>
         <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
      </m:msubsup>
   </m:mfrac>
   <m:mtext>.</m:mtext>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</display-formula>
				</p><p>Comparing the calculated average levels of strain in the SLs for both samples, we find that sample S1 (line 1<sup>teor.</sup>) is predicted to have 12 times greater strain than sample S2 (line 2<sup>teor.</sup>). In sample S1, the large lattice mismatch (14%) between the GaN template layer and the sapphire substrate is greatly compensated due to the growth of the thick (5&#8201;&#956;m) GaN, leaving only a slight strain that resulted from thermal mismatch-induced bowing. Thus, the GaN template layer and GaN buffer are considered fully relaxed. Therefore, for the growth of the S1 structure, the deformation jump between the GaN buffer and the SL is absorbed entirely by the AlN SL layers. In the case of sample S2, due to redistribution of strain between the GaN buffer layer and the AlN template, which have similar thicknesses, the GaN buffer is compressed. Consequently, for pseudomorphic growth of the S2 structure, the deformation jump between the GaN buffer and the SL is shared by both AlN and GaN SL layers resulting in the very small average strain (line 2<sup>teor.</sup>).</p>
				<fig id="F2"><title><p>Figure 2</p></title><caption><p>The RT in-plane strain depth profiles for samples S1 (a) and S2 (b)</p></caption><text>
   <p><b>The RT in-plane strain depth profiles for samples S1 (a) and S2 (b).</b> Solid lines, theoretical; dashed lines, experimental. Horizontal lines 1 and 2 show the theoretical and experimental average strain in the SL layers for samples S1 and S2, respectively.</p>
</text><graphic file="1556-276X-7-289-2"/></fig><p>In fact, the average levels of deformation in the SLs, obtained from the RSMs, are similar: <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i20" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
      <m:mo stretchy="true">(</m:mo>
      <m:mtext>exp</m:mtext>
      <m:mo>.</m:mo>
      <m:mo stretchy="true">)</m:mo>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> is approximately 5 to 6&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>&#8722;3</sup> (see lines 1<sup>exp.</sup> and 2<sup>exp.</sup>). In the case of S1, as assumed above, the relaxed GaN buffer induces strong tensile stresses in the AlN SL layers. The strain of the AlN in the SL is so large that it prevents pseudomorphic growth. Consequently, the SL relaxes and grows &#8216;isolated&#8217; from the GaN buffer (non-pseudomorphic growth), leading to a redistribution of strain between the coherent layers of the SL. Thus, the GaN cap layer which is less deformed than the GaN SL layers but more deformed than the GaN buffer also grows isolated from the SL and GaN buffer. In the case of S2, the 340-nm-thin AlN template layer on sapphire is also almost completely relaxed (degree of relaxation of 97%). Consequently, the GaN buffer grown on this template is in a compressed state with a strain two times less than expected from pseudomorphic growth. Thus, in contrast to S1, in S2, the strained GaN buffer results in a smaller tensile stress in the AlN SL layers, and consequently, pseudomorphic growth of the entire structure is achieved.</p><p>The principal difference in the mechanical stresses and the resulting relaxation in samples S1 and S2 is also illustrated by a detailed AFM analysis of the typical morphological defects that occurred in the GaN cap layers. This is shown in Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr>. Here, we see that the surface of S1 is covered with a net of microcracks that run along the &lt;2-1-10&#8201;&gt;&#8201;crystallographic directions. Strict adherence of the cracks to these directions is shown by the fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the AFM images (see Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr>a inset). This demonstrates a sharp sixfold symmetry as would be expected, with a deviation in direction of not more than&#8201;&#177;&#8201;2&#176;. The intensity of FFT bands qualitatively indicates anisotropy in the crack density along two equal crystallographic directions on the surface with values of <it>N</it>
					<sub>cr.</sub> of 1.1 and 1.7&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>3</sup>&#8201;cm<sup>&#8722;1</sup>. Note that on the surface, there appear microcrack clusters (lateral size between 10 and 20&#8201;&#956;m) where a local density of cracks <it>N</it>
					<sub>cr.</sub> rises up to&#8201;9&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>3</sup>&#8201;cm<sup>&#8722;1</sup>.</p>
				<fig id="F3"><title><p>Figure 3</p></title><caption><p>AFM topography maps of S1 (a to c) and S2 (d to f) samples</p></caption><text>
   <p><b>AFM topography maps of S1 (a to c) and S2 (d to f) samples.</b> Insets (<b>a,d</b>) illustrate FFT of corresponding AFM maps. Surface height profiles along dashed lines are shown on (<b>c,f</b>). Maps (<b>a,d</b>) have enhanced, contrasted for convenience.</p>
</text><graphic file="1556-276X-7-289-3"/></fig><p>A detailed surface structure analysis of sample S1 (Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr>b) shows coherent terraces (widths of <it>L</it>
					<sub>ter.</sub> is approximately 300&#8201;nm) typical for layer-by-layer, Frank-van der Merwe growth. These terraces often are stopped by &#8216;pinholes&#8217; which are understood to be the result of threading dislocations terminating at the surface <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B19">19</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>. This is substantiated by the observation that the density of pinholes, with <it>N</it>
					<sub>pin.</sub>&#8201;=&#8201;0.86&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>8</sup>&#8201;cm<sup>&#8722;2</sup>, is similar to the density of threading dislocations, with <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i21" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msub>
   <m:mi>N</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>screw</m:mtext>
</m:msub>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> = 1.9&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>8</sup>&#8201;cm<sup>&#8722;2</sup>, obtained by XRD (see Tables&#8201;<tblr tid="T1">1</tblr> and <tblr tid="T2">2</tblr>). In general, we find that cracks (Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr>b) appear to cross existing terraces, running through pinholes. This indicates that a crack observed by AFM appeared after the terraces were formed, i.e., at the termination of structure&#8217;s growth. However, one cannot exclude the presence of cracks that are formed in the lower layers of the SL structure that were overgrown by the next layers. Indeed, as seen in Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr>c, there are no clearly observable coherent terraces within the regions of extremely high density cracks. Growing top layer stops at edges of crack forming small banks. Thus, we can suppose that cracks of this kind were formed during the growth process, and the film subsequently grows between them. Within statistical error, the density of pinholes is the same in areas between both types of cracks. Equal density of dislocations (pinholes) indicates near-the-same deformation level for each region of growing structure. Due to the finite size of the AFM tip, it is impossible to measure the depth of the cracks. The largest registered depth is about 45&#8201;nm (see profile on Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr>c)., as we showed above (Figure <figr fid="F2">2</figr>), a compressive strain is localized in the SL/cap interface (GaN cap layer is under compression), and the cracking could be provoked by the tensile deformation only. This kind of deformation is accumulated in the SL layers, and the cracks we observed most likely originated there and propagate along with the structure to the top. The possible mechanism of the SL-cap cracking is suggested below.</p><p>The GaN layer of sample S2 appears to have followed a three-dimensional Volmer-Weber growth mode and is characterized by the absence of any cracks. However, here, we also find twice the density of pinholes, with <it>N</it>
					<sub>pin.</sub> = 1.8&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>8</sup>&#8201;cm<sup>&#8722;2</sup> (Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr>d,e,f) more than in sample S1, which roughly correlates with the increase in screw dislocation density (2.7&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>8</sup>&#8201;cm<sup>&#8722;2</sup>) extracted from XRD. Three-dimensionally grown islands seem to have coalesced, forming boundaries containing 60&#176; or 120&#176; kinks that are separated by irregularly shaped trenches. Surface anisotropy of the boundary orientation is also evident in the FFT (inset of Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr>d) in the form of two diffuse maxima. At the same time, we estimate here an average island (terrace) size (<it>L</it>
					<sub>ter.</sub>) of approximately 900&#8201;nm (Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr>f).</p><p>Until now, we have only considered the strain induced by the lattice mismatch of layers at RT, so we now want to consider the contribution of thermal deformations caused by the mismatch of thermal expansion coefficients of the layers as they cool from growth temperature, <it>T</it>
					<sub>gr</sub>&#8201;=&#8201;760&#176;C. Thus, the thermal deformations, <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i22" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:msubsup>
      <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
      <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
      <m:mtext>therm</m:mtext>
   </m:msubsup>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>, were calculated by the following formula:</p><p>
					<display-formula id="M4">
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i23" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:msubsup>
      <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
      <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
      <m:mrow>
         <m:mtext>therm</m:mtext>
         <m:mo>.</m:mo>
      </m:mrow>
   </m:msubsup>
   <m:mo>=</m:mo>
   <m:msubsup>
      <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
      <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
      <m:mtext>T</m:mtext>
   </m:msubsup>
   <m:mo>&#8722;</m:mo>
   <m:msubsup>
      <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
      <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
      <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
   </m:msubsup>
   <m:mo>=</m:mo>
   <m:mfrac>
      <m:msubsup>
         <m:mi>a</m:mi>
         <m:mi>S</m:mi>
         <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
      </m:msubsup>
      <m:msubsup>
         <m:mi>a</m:mi>
         <m:mi>L</m:mi>
         <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
      </m:msubsup>
   </m:mfrac>
   <m:mfenced open="(" close=")">
      <m:mfrac>
         <m:mrow>
            <m:mo stretchy="true">(</m:mo>
            <m:msubsup>
               <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
               <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
               <m:mi>S</m:mi>
            </m:msubsup>
            <m:mo>&#8722;</m:mo>
            <m:msubsup>
               <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
               <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
               <m:mi>L</m:mi>
            </m:msubsup>
            <m:mo stretchy="true">)</m:mo>
            <m:mo>&#916;</m:mo>
            <m:mi>T</m:mi>
         </m:mrow>
         <m:mrow>
            <m:mn>1</m:mn>
            <m:mo>+</m:mo>
            <m:msubsup>
               <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
               <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
               <m:mi>L</m:mi>
            </m:msubsup>
            <m:mo>&#916;</m:mo>
            <m:mi>T</m:mi>
         </m:mrow>
      </m:mfrac>
   </m:mfenced>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</display-formula>
				</p><p>where <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i24" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
   <m:mi mathvariant="normal">II</m:mi>
   <m:mi>T</m:mi>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> is the in-plane strain at the growth temperature; <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i25" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
   <m:mi mathvariant="normal">II</m:mi>
   <m:mi>T</m:mi>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> is the in-plane strain at RT; <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i26" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:msubsup>
      <m:mi>a</m:mi>
      <m:mi>S</m:mi>
      <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
   </m:msubsup>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> and <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i27" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>a</m:mi>
   <m:mi>L</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> are lattice constants of the substrate and the layers at RT; <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i28" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
   <m:mi mathvariant="normal">S</m:mi>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> and <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i29" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
   <m:mi>L</m:mi>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> are thermal expansion coefficients of the substrate and the layers (<inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i30" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
   <m:mi>GaN</m:mi>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> = 6.2&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>&#8722;6</sup>/K, <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i31" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
   <m:mi>AlN</m:mi>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> = 7&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>&#8722;6</sup>/K, <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i32" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#945;</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mi>A</m:mi>
      <m:mi>l</m:mi>
      <m:mn>2</m:mn>
      <m:mi>O</m:mi>
      <m:mn>3</m:mn>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> = 7.5&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>&#8722;6</sup>/K) <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B20">20</abbr>
						<abbr bid="B21">21</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>; and <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i33" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mi mathvariant="normal">&#916;</m:mi>
<m:mi>T</m:mi>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> is the difference between <it>T</it>
					<sub>gr.</sub> and RT. As seen in Figure <figr fid="F4">4</figr>, the thermal deformations for sample S1 are more than an order of magnitude less than the strain caused by the lattice mismatch between layers by comparison with Figure <figr fid="F2">2</figr>, both for the case of pseudomorphic growth, <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i34" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>a</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
   <m:mo>=</m:mo>
</m:msubsup>
<m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>a</m:mi>
   <m:mi>L</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>RT</m:mtext>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>, (theor.) and the case of partial relaxation (exp.). In addition, the low values of thermal deformation indicate that post-growth annealing with temperatures at or above <it>T</it>
					<sub>gr.</sub> should not lead to any significant additional deformation or strain relaxation in these structures, as has been seen elsewhere for single layer AlGaN films with low Al concentration <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B22">22</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>.</p>
				<fig id="F4"><title><p>Figure 4</p></title><caption><p>The in-plane thermal strain depth profiles for sample S1</p></caption><text>
   <p><b>The in-plane thermal strain depth profiles for sample S1.</b> Solid line, theoretical; dashed line, experimental.</p>
</text><graphic file="1556-276X-7-289-4"/></fig><p>Thus, it is impossible to completely eliminate the influence of buffer strain on stress relaxation in the SL because, as demonstrated in Equation (4), thermal strain is non-zero for these structures. Thermal and misfit strains for growth on the (0001) surface can be related to the stress components:</p><p>
					<display-formula id="M5">
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i35" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:mfenced open="(" close=")">
      <m:mtable columnalign="center">
         <m:mtr columnalign="center">
            <m:mtd columnalign="center">
               <m:msub>
                  <m:mi>&#963;</m:mi>
                  <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
               </m:msub>
            </m:mtd>
         </m:mtr>
         <m:mtr columnalign="center">
            <m:mtd columnalign="center">
               <m:msub>
                  <m:mi>&#963;</m:mi>
                  <m:mo>&#10178;</m:mo>
               </m:msub>
            </m:mtd>
         </m:mtr>
      </m:mtable>
   </m:mfenced>
   <m:mo>=</m:mo>
   <m:mfenced open="(" close=")">
      <m:mtable columnalign="center">
         <m:mtr columnalign="center">
            <m:mtd columnalign="center">
               <m:mrow>
                  <m:msub>
                     <m:mi>C</m:mi>
                     <m:mn>11</m:mn>
                  </m:msub>
                  <m:mo>+</m:mo>
                  <m:msub>
                     <m:mi>C</m:mi>
                     <m:mn>12</m:mn>
                  </m:msub>
               </m:mrow>
            </m:mtd>
            <m:mtd columnalign="center">
               <m:msub>
                  <m:mi>C</m:mi>
                  <m:mn>13</m:mn>
               </m:msub>
            </m:mtd>
         </m:mtr>
         <m:mtr columnalign="center">
            <m:mtd columnalign="center">
               <m:mrow>
                  <m:mn>2</m:mn>
                  <m:msub>
                     <m:mi>C</m:mi>
                     <m:mn>13</m:mn>
                  </m:msub>
               </m:mrow>
            </m:mtd>
            <m:mtd columnalign="center">
               <m:msub>
                  <m:mi>C</m:mi>
                  <m:mn>33</m:mn>
               </m:msub>
            </m:mtd>
         </m:mtr>
      </m:mtable>
   </m:mfenced>
   <m:mo>&#183;</m:mo>
   <m:mfenced open="(" close=")">
      <m:mtable columnalign="center">
         <m:mtr columnalign="center">
            <m:mtd columnalign="center">
               <m:mrow>
                  <m:msub>
                     <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
                     <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
                  </m:msub>
                  <m:mo>&#8722;</m:mo>
                  <m:msubsup>
                     <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
                     <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
                     <m:mrow>
                        <m:mtext>therm</m:mtext>
                        <m:mo>.</m:mo>
                     </m:mrow>
                  </m:msubsup>
               </m:mrow>
            </m:mtd>
         </m:mtr>
         <m:mtr columnalign="center">
            <m:mtd columnalign="center">
               <m:mrow>
                  <m:msub>
                     <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
                     <m:mo>&#10178;</m:mo>
                  </m:msub>
                  <m:mo>&#8722;</m:mo>
                  <m:msubsup>
                     <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
                     <m:mo>&#10178;</m:mo>
                     <m:mrow>
                        <m:mtext>therm</m:mtext>
                        <m:mo>.</m:mo>
                     </m:mrow>
                  </m:msubsup>
               </m:mrow>
            </m:mtd>
         </m:mtr>
      </m:mtable>
   </m:mfenced>
   <m:mtext>,</m:mtext>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</display-formula>
				</p><p>where <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i36" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:mrow>
   <m:msub>
      <m:mo>&#963;</m:mo>
      <m:mrow>
         <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
         <m:mo>,</m:mo>
         <m:mo>&#10178;</m:mo>
      </m:mrow>
   </m:msub>
</m:mrow>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> are stress components; <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i37" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msub>
   <m:mi>C</m:mi>
   <m:mi>ij</m:mi>
</m:msub>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>, elastic constants; <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i38" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msub>
   <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
      <m:mo>,</m:mo>
      <m:mo>&#10178;</m:mo>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msub>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>, strain component due to the lattice mismatch; and <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i39" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
      <m:mo>,</m:mo>
      <m:mo>&#10178;</m:mo>
   </m:mrow>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mi>therm</m:mi>
      <m:mtext>.</m:mtext>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>, thermal strain. It is clear that the component of thermal strain, <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i40" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
      <m:mo>,</m:mo>
      <m:mo>&#10178;</m:mo>
   </m:mrow>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mi>therm</m:mi>
      <m:mtext>.</m:mtext>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>, is considerably less than the residual strains due to lattice mismatch as was shown above. However, this component will play a crucial role in the total strain of a fully relaxed layer (<inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i41" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msub>
   <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
      <m:mo>,</m:mo>
      <m:mo>&#10178;</m:mo>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msub>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> = 0), which makes it impossible to completely eliminate the influence of the buffer on stress relaxation in SLs. Indeed, for virtually strain-free GaN-buffer/GaN(5&#8201;&#956;m)-on-sapphire template (S1), using Equation (4), the thermal strain (<inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i42" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mi>therm</m:mi>
      <m:mtext>.</m:mtext>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula>) would be 7.83&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>&#8722;4</sup>, which in this system would lead to bending with a radius curvature of&#8201;4.2&#8201;m by the Stoney formula <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B23">23</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>. This agrees well with the experimentally determined <it>R</it>
					<sub>curv.</sub> of 4&#8201;m. For GaN-buffer/AlN(340&#8201;nm)-on-sapphire template (S2), the thermal strain (<inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i43" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mi>&#949;</m:mi>
   <m:mtext>II</m:mtext>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mi>therm</m:mi>
      <m:mtext>.</m:mtext>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> = 4.26&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>&#8722;4</sup>) leads to a system with a radius of curvature of&#8201;70&#8201;m, which is not consistent with the experimentally determined <it>R</it>
					<sub>curv.</sub> of 10&#8201;m. This curvature can be caused only by deformation, an order of magnitude higher of approximately 3&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>&#8722;3</sup>. Such deformation can be caused only by the strain component due to lattice mismatch, reduced by dislocations with a density of&#8201;8.6&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>8</sup>&#8201;cm<sup>&#8722;2</sup>, which agrees well with the experimental density of dislocations in this sample.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<st>
					<p>Discussion</p>
				</st><p>For any type of heterostructure, the strain can be relaxed elastically by deformations of the surface (undulations) or plastically by defects (dislocations, for example). For these hexagonal structures, there is an additional channel of elastic relaxation which becomes favorable. This is the degree of twist of the unit cells of the layer with respect to the substrate unit cells as is understood to be a major mechanism of strain reduction for GaN on <it>c</it>-plane sapphire by which the growth axis of GaN rotates around the <it>c</it>-axis by 30&#176; to find a more favorable lattice match <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B24">24</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>. Moreover, the formation of dislocations in the hexagonal structures which lead to lateral inhomogeneities (cracking, tilt and twist of nano-blocks), induces a degree of mosaic structure. For our samples, we must not only consider the effects of these relaxation mechanisms on the layers themselves, but we must also consider the strain state of the buffer layer. The initial deformation of the buffer/template determines the dominant plastic relaxation component (dislocations, cracks, or mosaic) in the stress relaxation of the system.</p><p>As can be seen from Figure <figr fid="F5">5</figr>, comparing the spot for <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i44" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mtext>SL</m:mtext>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>exp</m:mtext>
      <m:mo>.</m:mo>
   </m:mrow>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mi>S</m:mi>
      <m:mn>1</m:mn>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> with that for <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i45" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mtext>SL</m:mtext>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>exp</m:mtext>
      <m:mo>.</m:mo>
   </m:mrow>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>S</m:mtext>
      <m:mn>2</m:mn>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> demonstrates that the final, average lattice constants (deformation states) of the GaN/AlN (1.98/1.98&#8201;nm) SLs on both substrates are nearly the same (<it>a</it>&#8201;=&#8201;0.3166&#8201;&#177;&#8201;0.0002&#8201;nm; <it>c</it>&#8201;=&#8201;0.5069 &#177; 0.0002&#8201;nm). However, by comparing with the spot <inline-formula>
						<m:math name="1556-276X-7-289-i46" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><m:msubsup>
   <m:mtext>SL</m:mtext>
   <m:mtext>R</m:mtext>
   <m:mrow>
      <m:mtext>S1,S</m:mtext>
      <m:mn>2</m:mn>
   </m:mrow>
</m:msubsup>
</m:math>
					</inline-formula> (<it>a</it>&#8201;=&#8201;0.3148&#8201;nm; <it>c</it>&#8201;=&#8201;0.5076&#8201;nm), we may conclude that the SLs are not full relaxed. In <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B4">4</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>, for growth on templates made from GaN(5&#8201;&#956;m)-, Al<sub>
						<it>x</it>
					</sub>Ga<sub>1&#8722;<it>x</it>
					</sub>N(1&#8201;&#956;m)-, and AlN(1&#8201;&#956;m)-on-sapphire, the GaN/AlN (1.25/3&#8201;nm), SLs relax to an average in-plane lattice constant (<it>a</it>) of&#8201;0.313&#8201;nm, which is only slightly different from the expected value (<it>a</it>&#8201;=&#8201;0.314&#8201;nm) from elastic energy minimization, indicating their full relaxation regardless of conditions. However, the mechanisms of strain relaxation of the SLs on the different substrates were not described. In <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B7">7</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>, it is shown that the in-plane lattice parameter during growth (<it>a</it> is between 0.3182 and 0.3188&#8201;nm) and the residual average lattice parameter (<it>a</it> is 0.3174&#8201;nm) of the GaN/AlN SLs are significantly different; however, there is no discussion of the resulting residual effects. No cracks or macroscopic defects were observed in any of the samples indicating relaxation in the layers of the superlattice through misfit dislocation formation. In <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B5">5</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>, for asymmetrical 40-period GaN/AlN (1.5/3&#8201;nm) SLs deposited on GaN(4&#8201;&#956;m)- and AlN(1&#8201;&#956;m)-on-sapphire templates, it was shown that the initial misfit relaxation in the vicinity of the buffer occurs by the formation of 60&#176; 1/3&#8201;&#8804;&#8201;11-20&#8201;&#8805;&#8201;dislocations in the basal plane; the density of which is not given. Crack propagation is not observed, even for the tensile-strained SLs grown on GaN templates, and it also reported that the periodic partial relaxation of QWs and barriers can be related to the presence of basal and prismatic stacking faults creating clusters with an in-plane length of tens of nanometers. In <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B6">6</abbr>
						<abbr bid="B7">7</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>, 40-period GaN/Al<sub>
						<it>x</it>
					</sub>Ga<sub>1&#8722;<it>x</it>
					</sub>N (7/4&#8201;nm) SLs deposited on GaN (tensile stress) and on AlGaN (0.3&#8201;&#956;m) buffer layers with the same Al mole fraction as the SL barriers (compressive stress), both deposited on GaN-on-sapphire templates were investigated. For all samples, the interfaces appear sharp, and the stacking fault loops reported in GaN/AlN SL <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B5">5</abbr>
					</abbrgrp> were not detected. Using GaN buffer layers, the SL remains almost pseudomorphic for <it>x</it>&#8201;=&#8201;0.1 and 0.3, with edge-type threading dislocation densities below 2&#8201;&#215;&#8201;10<sup>9</sup>&#8201;cm<sup>&#8722;2</sup>. For an Al mole fraction of <it>x</it>&#8201;=&#8201;0.44, misfit relaxation resulted in dislocation densities above 10<sup>9</sup>&#8201;cm<sup>&#8722;2</sup>. In the case of growth on AlGaN, strain relaxation is systematically more complete, with a corresponding increase in the dislocation density.</p>
				<fig id="F5"><title><p>Figure 5</p></title><caption><p>Lattice parameters a and c for SLs and GaN-buffer layers in samples S1 and S2</p></caption><text>
   <p><b>Lattice parameters</b><b><it>a</it></b><b>and</b><b><it>c</it></b><b>for SLs and GaN-buffer layers in samples S1 and S2.</b> Vertical solid lines connect the GaN buffer layers with the fully strained SL<sub>S</sub> points predicted by theory for that structure, and the dashed (relaxation) line connects the fully strained SL<sub>S</sub> with the fully relaxed SL<sub>R</sub> points.</p>
</text><graphic file="1556-276X-7-289-5"/></fig><p>In our case, the processes for strain relief in the two samples are very different. The large magnitude of the mismatch in the lattice parameters makes pseudomorphic growth of the SL on the GaN buffer/GaN/sapphire impossible in sample S1. Such large tensile stresses, which are concentrated in the AlN SL layers lead to a cracking process when the SL reaches some critical thickness. Consequently, the SL grows isolated from the GaN buffer, with an in-plane lattice parameter smaller than that of the GaN buffer layer (Figure <figr fid="F5">5</figr>). The anisotropic density of cracks observed in the AFM of sample S1, Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr>a, demonstrates the complex heterogeneous nature of the strain fields. These microcrack arrays are, however, typical for these structures and are consistent with prior studies <abbrgrp>
						<abbr bid="B25">25</abbr>
					</abbrgrp>. Analysis of the XRD and AFM results indicates that the cracks form primarily following the termination of growth; not during growth. However, the structure would crack only under the influence of tensile stress, i.e., when the in-plane lattice parameter is smaller than the layer on which it is growing. Thus, we can conclude that we would only observe a crack when it was formed in the SL layer, because <it>a</it>
					<sub>GaN</sub>&#8201;&gt;&#8201;<it>a</it>
					<sub>SL</sub>. Furthermore, pinholes on the surface can also be observed from AFM images. The density of pinholes in sample S1 is similar to the density of threading dislocations according to the &#1061;RD. This indicates that, whereas the basic mechanism of structural relaxation is the formation of cracks, the dominant type of dislocation is threading.</p><p>The XRD and AFM data clearly illustrate a fundamentally different mechanism of residual strain relaxation in the SL structure, grown on GaN buffer/AlN/sapphire, sample S2. Here, a pseudomorphic growth resulted from the initial compression of the GaN buffer layer allowing for the full magnitude of the stress to be distributed between the AlN and GaN SL layers. This prevented the SL strain from reaching critical values for cracking, leaving the SL relaxed due to the large number of dislocations in the template layers. For this sample, the density of threading dislocations and pinholes are higher. Thus, in this case, the formation of a large number of different types of dislocations promotes the pseudomorphic growth of the SL and cap layers (Figure <figr fid="F5">5</figr>).</p><p>The result of the different strain accumulation level at the SL/cap interface are likely the different observed growth modes of the GaN cap layers in our structures. Even <it>ex-situ</it> X-ray measurements establish a significant difference between the cap and average SL strains in the S1 sample (Figure <figr fid="F1">1</figr>). This means that the SL in this sample maintains the strain from thick GaN template until crack formation becomes energetically favorable. This significantly relaxes the SL layer creating further compressive strain in the subsequent GaN cap layer. This cap layer initially follows the pattern of the SL cracks growing in a step-flow regime causing the observed terrace structure in the AFM, as seen in Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr>b. However, after growth termination and cooling the structure, an in-plain thermal strain became significant enough to form a new set of cracks through the larger coherent regions left from the initial crack pattern, as seen in Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr>c. In contrast, the strain compensation in the SL layers is more pronounced for the S2 sample (the average strain level correlates with theoretical prediction), and the GaN cap layer remains under compression. In the case of the GaN cap layer with a larger lattice constant than AlN, the three-dimensional growth is more energetically favorable. Rough island nucleation and coalesce with dislocation generation in GaN cap reduce overall strain in cap layer.</p><p>Thus, it was found that for the growth of GaN/AlN SLs without any cracks, it is necessary to use GaN and AlN sequentially to form a suitable template for growth. As can be seen from Figure <figr fid="F5">5</figr>, by selecting the appropriate thickness of GaN buffer and AlN template layers for a composite GaN-AlN template, equality of the in-plane lattice parameters of the GaN buffer and the SL can be achieved.</p>
			</sec>
		</sec>
		<sec>
			<st>
				<p>Conclusions</p>
			</st><p>We have shown that thick, short-period AlN/GaN SL growth on (0001)-oriented sapphire substrates can be achieved without cracking by the introduction of a strain-compensating layer before the growth. This, unfortunately, comes at the expense of having to introduce a significant density of threading dislocations in the system. Since these dislocations are directly related to the quality of the AlN on sapphire growth, these may be avoidable by using thicker AlN templates as starting surfaces. One advantage of this technique, however, is that it uses films of stoichiometric AlN and GaN separately to form the strained growth surface. This has an advantage over using a given thick alloy with an appropriate lattice constant by avoiding complications of alloy growth in the nitrides and providing a consistent GaN layer into which electrical contacts may be fabricated. Arbitrary doping and etching of AlGaN alloys is still problematic.</p>
		</sec>
		<sec>
			<st>
				<p>Competing interests</p>
			</st><p>The authors declare that they have no competing interests.</p>
		</sec>
		<sec>
			<st>
				<p>Authors&#8217; contributions</p>
			</st><p>VK and AK carried out the XRD studies and experiment interpretation. PL carried out the AFM studies. OY, NS, AB participated in the experiment and its interpretation. YuM, ED, and MW grew the structures and experiment interpretation. VK, YuM, and MW drafted the manuscript. GS participated in the design and coordination of the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p>
		</sec>
		<sec>
			<st>
				<p>Authors&#8217; information</p>
			</st><p>VK and AB are professors at the Institute of Semiconductor Physics (ISP). AK, PL, OY, and NS are Ph.D. fellows at ISP. YuM and GS are professors at the University of Arkansas. ED and MW are Ph.D. fellows at the University of Arkansas.</p>
		</sec>
	</bdy>
	<bm>
		<ack>
			<sec>
				<st>
					<p>Acknowledgements</p>
				</st><p>This study was supported by the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine within the framework of the scientific-technological program &#8220;Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials&#8221;, project M212/2011 and by the National Science Foundation of the US under grant no. DMR0520550.</p>
			</sec>
		</ack>
		<refgrp><bibl id="B1"><aug><au><snm>Morko&#231;</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au></aug><source>Handbook of Nitride Semiconductors and Devices: Electronic and Optical Processes in Nitrides</source><publisher>Berlin: Wiley-VCH</publisher><pubdate>2008</pubdate></bibl><bibl id="B2"><aug><au><snm>Ruterana</snm><fnm>P</fnm></au><au><snm>Albrecht</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au><au><snm>Neugebauer</snm><fnm>J</fnm></au></aug><source>Nitride Semiconductors: Handbook on Materials and Devices</source><publisher>Berlin: Wiley-VCH</publisher><pubdate>2003</pubdate></bibl><bibl id="B3"><title><p>Comparison of the structural quality in Ga-face and N-face polarity GaN/AlN multiple-quantum-well structures</p></title><aug><au><snm>Sarigiannidou</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Monroy</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Gogneau</snm><fnm>N</fnm></au><au><snm>Radtke</snm><fnm>G</fnm></au><au><snm>Bayle-Guillemaud</snm><fnm>P</fnm></au><au><snm>Bellet-Amalric</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Daudin</snm><fnm>B</fnm></au><au><snm>Rouviere</snm><fnm>JL</fnm></au></aug><source>Semicond Sci Technol</source><pubdate>2006</pubdate><volume>21</volume><fpage>612</fpage><lpage>618</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B4"><title><p>GaN/AlN short-period superlattices for intersubband optoelectronics: a systematic study of their epitaxial growth, design and performance</p></title><aug><au><snm>Kandaswamy</snm><fnm>PK</fnm></au><au><snm>Guillot</snm><fnm>F</fnm></au><au><snm>Bellet-Amalric</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Monroy</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Nevou</snm><fnm>L</fnm></au><au><snm>Tchernycheva</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au><au><snm>Michon</snm><fnm>A</fnm></au><au><snm>Julien</snm><fnm>FH</fnm></au><au><snm>Baumann</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Giorgetta</snm><fnm>FR</fnm></au><au><snm>Hofstetter</snm><fnm>D</fnm></au><au><snm>Remmele</snm><fnm>T</fnm></au><au><snm>Albrecht</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au><au><snm>Birner</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Dang</snm><fnm>LS</fnm></au></aug><source>J Appl Phys</source><pubdate>2008</pubdate><volume>104</volume><fpage>093501</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B5"><title><p>Strain relaxation in short-period polar GaN/AlN superlattices</p></title><aug><au><snm>Kandaswamy</snm><fnm>PK</fnm></au><au><snm>Bougerol</snm><fnm>C</fnm></au><au><snm>Jalabert</snm><fnm>D</fnm></au><au><snm>Ruterana</snm><fnm>P</fnm></au><au><snm>Monroy</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au></aug><source>J Appl Phys</source><pubdate>2009</pubdate><volume>106</volume><fpage>013526</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B6"><title><p>Strain relaxation in GaN/AlxGa1&#8722;xN superlattices grown by plasma-assisted molecular-beam epitaxy</p></title><aug><au><snm>Kotsar</snm><fnm>Y</fnm></au><au><snm>Doisneau</snm><fnm>B</fnm></au><au><snm>Bellet-Amalric</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Das</snm><fnm>A</fnm></au><au><snm>Sarigiannidou</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Monroy</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au></aug><source>J Appl Phys</source><pubdate>2011</pubdate><volume>110</volume><fpage>033501</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B7"><title><p>Strain relaxation in GaN/Al0.1Ga0.9N superlattices for mid-infrared intersubband absorption</p></title><aug><au><snm>Kotsar</snm><fnm>Y</fnm></au><au><snm>Kandaswamy</snm><fnm>PK</fnm></au><au><snm>Das</snm><fnm>A</fnm></au><au><snm>Sarigiannidou</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Bellet-Amalric</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Monroy</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au></aug><source>J Cryst Growth</source><pubdate>2011</pubdate><volume>323</volume><fpage>64</fpage><lpage>67</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B8"><title><p>Near-infrared wavelength intersubband transitions in GaN/AlN short period superlattices</p></title><aug><au><snm>DeCuir</snm><fnm>EA</fnm><suf>Jr</suf></au><au><snm>Fred</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Passmore</snm><fnm>BS</fnm></au><au><snm>Muddasani</snm><fnm>A</fnm></au><au><snm>Manasreh</snm><fnm>MO</fnm></au><au><snm>Xie</snm><fnm>J</fnm></au><au><snm>Morko&#231;</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au><au><snm>Ware</snm><fnm>ME</fnm></au><au><snm>Salamo</snm><fnm>GJ</fnm></au></aug><source>Appl Phys Lett</source><pubdate>2006</pubdate><volume>89</volume><fpage>151112</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B9"><aug><au><snm>Fewster</snm><fnm>P</fnm></au></aug><source>X-Ray Scattering from Semiconductors (2nd Edition)</source><publisher>London: Imperial College Press</publisher><pubdate>2003</pubdate></bibl><bibl id="B10"><title><p>Internal strains and crystal structure of the layers in AlGaN/GaN heterostructures grown on a sapphire substrate</p></title><aug><au><snm>Kladko</snm><fnm>VP</fnm></au><au><snm>Kolomys</snm><fnm>AF</fnm></au><au><snm>Slobodian</snm><fnm>MV</fnm></au><au><snm>Strelchuk</snm><fnm>VV</fnm></au><au><snm>Raycheva</snm><fnm>VG</fnm></au><au><snm>Belyaev</snm><fnm>AE</fnm></au><au><snm>Bukalov</snm><fnm>SS</fnm></au><au><snm>Hardtdegen</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au><au><snm>Sydoruk</snm><fnm>VA</fnm></au><au><snm>Klein</snm><fnm>N</fnm></au><au><snm>Vitusevich</snm><fnm>SA</fnm></au></aug><source>J Appl Phys</source><pubdate>2009</pubdate><volume>105</volume><fpage>063515</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B11"><title><p>Analysis of the defect structure of epitaxial GaN</p></title><aug><au><snm>Heinke</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au><au><snm>Kirchner</snm><fnm>V</fnm></au><au><snm>Einfeldt</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Hommel</snm><fnm>D</fnm></au></aug><source>Phys Stat Sol A</source><pubdate>1999</pubdate><volume>176</volume><fpage>391</fpage><lpage>395</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B12"><title><p>Mosaicity of GaN epitaxial layers: simulation and experiment</p></title><aug><au><snm>Chierchia</snm><fnm>R</fnm></au><au><snm>Bottcher</snm><fnm>T</fnm></au><au><snm>Figge</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Diesselberg</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au><au><snm>Heinke</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au><au><snm>Hommel</snm><fnm>D</fnm></au></aug><source>Phys Stat Sol B</source><pubdate>2001</pubdate><volume>228</volume><fpage>403</fpage><lpage>406</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B13"><title><p>Microstructure of heteroepitaxial GaN revealed by x-ray diffraction</p></title><aug><au><snm>Chierchia</snm><fnm>R</fnm></au><au><snm>Bottcher</snm><fnm>T</fnm></au><au><snm>Heinke</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au><au><snm>Einfeldt</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Figge</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Hommel</snm><fnm>D</fnm></au></aug><source>J Appl Phys</source><pubdate>2003</pubdate><volume>93</volume><fpage>8918</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B14"><title><p>Defect structure of epitaxial GaN films determined by transmission electron microscopy and triple-axis X-ray diffractometry</p></title><aug><au><snm>Metzger</snm><fnm>T</fnm></au><au><snm>Hoppler</snm><fnm>R</fnm></au><au><snm>Born</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Ambacher</snm><fnm>O</fnm></au><au><snm>Stutzmann</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au><au><snm>Stommer</snm><fnm>R</fnm></au><au><snm>Schuster</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au><au><snm>Gobel</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au><au><snm>Christiansen</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Albrecht</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au><au><snm>Strunk</snm><fnm>HP</fnm></au></aug><source>Philos Mag A</source><pubdate>1998</pubdate><volume>77</volume><fpage>1013</fpage><lpage>1025</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B15"><title><p>The effect of wafer curvature on x-ray rocking curves from gallium nitride films</p></title><aug><au><snm>Moram</snm><fnm>MA</fnm></au><au><snm>Vickers</snm><fnm>ME</fnm></au><au><snm>Kappers</snm><fnm>MJ</fnm></au><au><snm>Humphreys</snm><fnm>CJ</fnm></au></aug><source>J Appl Phys</source><pubdate>2008</pubdate><volume>103</volume><fpage>093528</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B16"><title><p>The solution of the dispersion equation in an explicit format for a case of two strong waves</p></title><aug><au><snm>Yefanov</snm><fnm>OM</fnm></au><au><snm>Kladko</snm><fnm>VP</fnm></au></aug><source>Metallofizika i Noveishie Tekhnologii</source><pubdate>2006</pubdate><volume>28</volume><fpage>227</fpage><lpage>244</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B17"><title><p>Influence of AlN overgrowth on structural properties of GaN quantum wells and quantum dots grown by plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy</p></title><aug><au><snm>Gogneau</snm><fnm>N</fnm></au><au><snm>Jalabert</snm><fnm>D</fnm></au><au><snm>Monroy</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Sarigiannidou</snm><fnm>E</fnm></au><au><snm>Rouviere</snm><fnm>JL</fnm></au><au><snm>Shibata</snm><fnm>T</fnm></au><au><snm>Tanaka</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au><au><snm>Gerard</snm><fnm>JM</fnm></au><au><snm>Daudin</snm><fnm>B</fnm></au></aug><source>J Appl Phys</source><pubdate>2004</pubdate><volume>96</volume><fpage>1104</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B18"><title><p>Influence of template type and buffer strain on structural properties of GaN multilayer quantum wells grown by PAMBE, an x-ray study</p></title><aug><au><snm>Kladko</snm><fnm>VP</fnm></au><au><snm>Kuchuk</snm><fnm>AV</fnm></au><au><snm>Safryuk</snm><fnm>NV</fnm></au><au><snm>Machulin</snm><fnm>VF</fnm></au><au><snm>Lytvyn</snm><fnm>PM</fnm></au><au><snm>Raicheva</snm><fnm>VG</fnm></au><au><snm>Belyaev</snm><fnm>AE</fnm></au><au><snm>Mazur</snm><fnm>YuI</fnm></au><au><snm>Jr DeCuir</snm><fnm>EA</fnm></au><au><snm>Ware</snm><fnm>ME</fnm></au><au><snm>Salamo</snm><fnm>GJ</fnm></au></aug><source>J Phys D: Appl Phys</source><pubdate>2011</pubdate><volume>44</volume><fpage>025403</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B19"><title><p>Strain effects on InxAl1&#8722;xN crystalline quality grown on GaN templates by metalorganic chemical vapor deposition</p></title><aug><au><snm>Miao</snm><fnm>ZL</fnm></au><au><snm>Yu</snm><fnm>TJ</fnm></au><au><snm>Xu</snm><fnm>FJ</fnm></au><au><snm>Song</snm><fnm>J</fnm></au><au><snm>Lu</snm><fnm>L</fnm></au><au><snm>Huang</snm><fnm>CC</fnm></au><au><snm>Yang</snm><fnm>ZJ</fnm></au><au><snm>Wang</snm><fnm>XQ</fnm></au><au><snm>Zhang</snm><fnm>GY</fnm></au><au><snm>Zhang</snm><fnm>XP</fnm></au><au><snm>Yu</snm><fnm>DP</fnm></au><au><snm>Shen</snm><fnm>B</fnm></au></aug><source>J Appl Phys</source><pubdate>2010</pubdate><volume>107</volume><fpage>043515</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B20"><title><p>Temperature dependence of the thermal expansion of AlN</p></title><aug><au><snm>Figge</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Kroncke</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au><au><snm>Hommel</snm><fnm>D</fnm></au><au><snm>Epelbaum</snm><fnm>BM</fnm></au></aug><source>Appl Phys Lett</source><pubdate>2009</pubdate><volume>94</volume><fpage>101915</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B21"><aug><au><snm>Belyaev</snm><fnm>LM</fnm></au></aug><source>Rubin i Sapfir</source><publisher>Moscow: Nauka Publishers</publisher><pubdate>1974</pubdate></bibl><bibl id="B22"><title><p>Strain relaxation in AlGaN under tensile plane stress</p></title><aug><au><snm>Einfeldt</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Kirchner</snm><fnm>V</fnm></au><au><snm>Heinke</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au><au><snm>Die&#223;elberg</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au><au><snm>Figge</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Vogeler</snm><fnm>K</fnm></au><au><snm>Hommel</snm><fnm>D</fnm></au></aug><source>J Appl Phys</source><pubdate>2000</pubdate><volume>88</volume><fpage>7029</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B23"><title><p>The tension of metallic films deposited by electrolysis</p></title><aug><au><snm>Stoney</snm><fnm>GG</fnm></au></aug><source>Proc R Soc Lond A</source><pubdate>1909</pubdate><volume>82</volume><fpage>172</fpage><lpage>175</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B24"><title><p>Mechanism of strain relaxation by twisted nanocolumns revealed in AlGaN/GaN heterostructures</p></title><aug><au><snm>Kladko</snm><fnm>VP</fnm></au><au><snm>Kuchuk</snm><fnm>AV</fnm></au><au><snm>Safryuk</snm><fnm>NV</fnm></au><au><snm>Machulin</snm><fnm>VF</fnm></au><au><snm>Belyaev</snm><fnm>AE</fnm></au><au><snm>Hardtdegen</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au><au><snm>Vitusievich</snm><fnm>SA</fnm></au></aug><source>Appl Phys Lett</source><pubdate>2009</pubdate><volume>95</volume><fpage>031907</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B25"><title><p>Strain in cracked AlGaN layers</p></title><aug><au><snm>Einfeldt</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Die&#223;elberg</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au><au><snm>Heinke</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au><au><snm>Hommel</snm><fnm>D</fnm></au><au><snm>Rudloff</snm><fnm>D</fnm></au><au><snm>Christen</snm><fnm>J</fnm></au><au><snm>Davis</snm><fnm>RF</fnm></au></aug><source>J Appl Phys</source><pubdate>2002</pubdate><volume>92</volume><fpage>118</fpage></bibl></refgrp>
	</bm>
</art>