In this work, we report on the growth of (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films in molecular beam epitaxy via metal oxide-catalyzed epitaxy. Films with Al contents up to 15% were grown and the Al content was measured with atom probe tomography. A relationship between the Al content and the out-of-plane lattice parameter was derived for both (001) and (100) orientations. Transmission electron microscopy showed no evidence of extended defects in (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3, and reciprocal space maps confirmed that β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films were coherently strained to (001) β-Ga2O3. Sn was also demonstrated to act as a surfactant for (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 growth, allowing for high-quality, uniform films with smooth morphologies.

As the need increases for efficient power electronics with high-power and high-frequency switching, ultra-wide bandgap semiconductors like β-Ga2O3 have gained much interest. Its large bandgap (4.8 eV),1 high breakdown field (5–8 MV/cm),2,3 availability of melt-grown bulk substrates,4,5 and n-type6–12 and acceptor doping13–15 make it an ideal candidate for unipolar semiconductor devices. The demonstration of high-quality β-Ga2O3 thin film growth via Halide Vapor Phase Epitaxy (HVPE),16 Metal Organic Chemical Vapor Deposition (MOCVD),17 and Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE)6,7 has already shown potential for diode18,19 and transistor applications.20–23 There is still much to understand in the growth of β-Ga2O3 and its alloys on different crystallographic orientations to realize the full potential of the material system.

The β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 alloy is of particular interest for β-Ga2Obased devices due to the wider bandgap and large conduction band offsets achievable between β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 and β-Ga2O.24–26 Modulation-doped heterostructures and field effect transistors (MODFETs) have been demonstrated using β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3, which utilizes a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) channel below the heterostructure interface in β-Ga2O3.22,23,27–31 By increasing the Al content x in the β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3, a higher 2DEG charge can be achieved in the channel due to the larger conduction band offset. Additionally, it has been predicted that at very high 2DEG charge, enhanced screening of polar optical phonons could further improve mobility in β-Ga2O3.32 

Still, there are limitations for achieving high Al contents in β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3. The stable phase of Al2O3 is the α-corundum phase, and Hill et al. have demonstrated the phase diagram of the Al2O3-Ga2O3 system, showing that the maximum Al solubility in β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 is ∼25% Al at temperatures <800 °C and 60% Al content at higher temperatures.33 At higher Al contents, the α-corundum phase was present. In the case of β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 film growth, the effects of strain34 and growth environment can limit the maximum Al content, with a maximum Al content of ∼26% achievable in (010) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 grown via MBE and MOCVD techniques despite growth temperatures up to 900 °C. Bhuiyan et al.35 and Johnson et al.36 demonstrated that at higher Al contents, γ-phase inclusions were observed in (010) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films, limiting this maximum Al content for coherent single phase growth.

The (010) orientation has been the primary growth plane for β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films due to superior material quality on this orientation via MBE37,38 and MOCVD growth.29,30,35,36 Recently, the use of an In flux in MBE growth has demonstrated marked improvement in growth rates and material quality in various orientations including (001) β-Ga2O3.10,12,39–42 This metal oxide catalyzed epitaxy (MOCATAXY),10 also referred to as metal-exchange catalysis MBE (MEXCAT-MBE) by Mazzolini et al.,42 could allow for improved (001) β-Ga2O3 devices. In this study, we investigate growth of (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films via MOCATAXY.

Films were grown on commercially available Fe-doped (001) β-Ga2O3 bulk substrates from Novel Crystal Technology in a Varian 620 MBE with a Veeco Unibulb oxygen plasma source run at a power of 200 W and a foreline pressure of 60 Torr. The resulting O2 pressure in the chamber was about 10−5 Torr measured by beam equivalent pressure (BEP) with about 1%–2% of that being the active O flux. A typical Ga flux of 2–2.5 × 10−7 Torr at a growth temperature of 800–850 °C (as measured by the thermocouple) was used, allowing for a maximum growth rate of 5.0 nm/min. High-resolution x-ray diffraction (HRXRD) was used to determine growth rates and Al content in films. Surface morphologies were characterized by atomic force microscopy (AFM). Cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was performed to characterize the structural quality of the films, and atom probe tomography (APT) was used to determine group III site fractions of Al and Ga.

First, to determine the relationship between the Al content of β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 and out-of-plane lattice parameter, which corresponds to the Bragg angle (θ002) measured in HRXRD, the fundamental stiffness tensor and stress–strain relationships for a coherently strained β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 film were used. Oshima et al. derived this relationship between the Al content in coherently strained (010) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 and out-of-plane lattice parameter (b) using the stiffness tensor of β-Ga2O3 in standard Voigt notation.38 The unit cell was placed in the Cartesian coordinate system where [100] || x^1, [010] || x^2, and g001 (same as c*) || x^3. Note that for (001) oriented films, the out-of-plane direction is g001 or c* and not the [001] direction. This same coordinate system and stiffness tensor can be used for derivation presented here.38 The Cartesian coordinate systems used for the (001) and (100) stiffness tensors are shown in Fig. 1.

FIG. 1.

Cartesian coordinate system used for (001) stiffness tensor (a) and the rotated Cartesian coordinate system used for transformed stiffness tensor for (100) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 (b).

FIG. 1.

Cartesian coordinate system used for (001) stiffness tensor (a) and the rotated Cartesian coordinate system used for transformed stiffness tensor for (100) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 (b).

Close modal

The standard Voigt notation used to express stiffness tensor cij, stress tensor σi, and strain tensor ɛj is used as shown in Eq. (1) (i.e., σj = cij ɛj). For (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 coherently strained on (001) β-Ga2O3, the β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 layer is subject to unbalanced plane stress, corresponding to (x^1) and (x^2) directions (along [100] and [010] directions) and represented by σ1 and σ2 in Eq. (1). The out-of-plane direction has a stress component (σ3) equal to 0. The shear strains ɛ4 and ɛ5 are also 0. From the third line in Eq. (1), an expression for ɛ3 can be determined as shown in Eq. (2),

(1)
(2)

The components of Eq. (2) can be expressed using Eqs. (3a)(3d), where ac, bc, and βc are in-plane and, therefore, the lattice parameters of β-Ga2O3. The relaxed lattice parameters, denoted by the subscript r, for β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 with varying Al contents (x) have been expressed by Kranert et al.43 as shown in Eqs. (4a)(4d), where ka = 0.42, kb = 0.13, kc = 0.17, and kβ = 0.31,

(3a)
(3b)
(3c)
(3d)
(4a)
(4b)
(4c)
(4d)

Substituting Eqs. (4a)(4d) and (3a)(3d) into Eq. (2) yields a relationship between Al content x and lattice parameter cc for the coherently strained (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 film as shown in Eq. (5), which can then be simplified to the form shown in Eq. (6),

(5)
(6)

Substituting in stiffness constants and lattice parameters from Kranert et al.43 and expressed in the supplementary material, yields Eq. (7). Relating this to the out-of-plane lattice parameter and, therefore, d-spacing of the (002) planes for the β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 film yields a relationship between Al content x and peak separation Δθ002 between the (002) β-Ga2O3 and β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 peaks assuming Cu Kα x-ray diffraction as shown in Eq. (8),

(7)
(8)

A full explanation of this derivation is provided in the supplementary material, along with a similar derivation for coherently strained (100) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films that yield the following relationships:

(9)
(10)
(11)

To investigate (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 growth for a range of Al contents, growth conditions similar to optimized (001) Sn-doped β-Ga2O3 films grown via MOCATAXY were used. Ga and In fluxes were 2.5 × 10−7 and 4.0 × 10−7 Torr, respectively, with a growth temperature of 800 °C and a Sn cell temperature of 800 °C, corresponding to an approximate Sn concentration of 1018 cm−3 measured by secondary ion mass spectrometry.10 Al fluxes of 1.0–1.8 × 10−8 Torr were used for (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films grown on β-Ga2O3 films on (001) β-Ga2O3 substrates. Figure 2(a) shows the HRXRD 2θ-ω scans with (002) β-Ga2O3 and (002) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 peaks for ∼90–100 nm films with varying Al contents. Al contents calculated from Eq. (8) are also shown in Fig. 2(a). Under the growth condition described earlier, we were able to obtain single crystalline β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films with a maximum of 15% at Al BEP of 1.8 × 10−8 Torr. High-intensity (002) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 peaks with clear thickness fringes can be observed, indicative of a high-quality, uniform film. Figure 2(b) shows the smooth surface morphology of the 11% (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 film measured by AFM with a root mean squared roughness of 1.2 nm and a surface morphology similar to that of (001) β-Ga2O3 films grown via MOCATAXY.

FIG. 2.

HRXRD 2θ-ω scans of (002) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 peaks for Sn-doped films grown on (001) β-Ga2O3 with varying Al contents calculated from peak separation (a) along with surface morphology for a (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 film measured by AFM (b).

FIG. 2.

HRXRD 2θ-ω scans of (002) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 peaks for Sn-doped films grown on (001) β-Ga2O3 with varying Al contents calculated from peak separation (a) along with surface morphology for a (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 film measured by AFM (b).

Close modal

Various attempts to grow unintentionally doped (UID) (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 were also performed for a range of MOCATAXY growth fluxes used for films in Fig. 2(a) without introducing a Sn flux during growths. Interestingly, similar growth conditions and growth times resulted in much worse film quality in the absence of a Sn flux. Figure 3(a) shows the HRXRD 2θ-ω scans showing the spread out (002) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 peaks with the absence of clear thickness fringes, indicative of the non-uniformity of Al composition or film thickness. The surface morphology of a UID (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 film is shown in Fig. 3(b), with a rougher surface than the Sn-doped (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 in Fig. 2(b). Additionally, RHEED patterns after completion of growth are shown in Fig. 3(c) for UID and in Fig. 3(d) for Sn-doped (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3, demonstrating a spotty RHEED pattern indicative of a rough surface morphology for the UID film and a streaky pattern indicative of a smooth surface for the Sn-doped (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 film. The results suggest that the presence of a Sn flux seemed to act as a surfactant for (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 growth via MOCATAXY. However, further investigation beyond the scope of this work is necessary to fully understand the role of Sn in (001) growth via MOCATAXY.

FIG. 3.

HRXRD 2θ-ω scans of (002) peaks for UID β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films grown on (001) β-Ga2O3 substrates (a) along with surface morphology measured by AFM (b). Spotty RHEED patterns for UID β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films (c) are shown along with streaky RHEED for Sn-doped β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 (d).

FIG. 3.

HRXRD 2θ-ω scans of (002) peaks for UID β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films grown on (001) β-Ga2O3 substrates (a) along with surface morphology measured by AFM (b). Spotty RHEED patterns for UID β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films (c) are shown along with streaky RHEED for Sn-doped β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 (d).

Close modal

To confirm that the (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films from Fig. 2(a) were coherently strained to the underlying (001) β-Ga2O3 layers, reciprocal space maps (RSMs) in HRXRD were performed for the off-axis (024) and (404) reflections, measured in an asymmetric geometry, of a 11% (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 film as shown in Fig. 4. For both cases, the β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 and β-Ga2O3 peaks appear to have the same q// position, suggesting that the β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films are coherently strained (in-plane) to β-Ga2O3.

FIG. 4.

HRXRD asymmetrical RSMs of the (024) (a) and (404) (b) peaks for (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 coherently strained to (001) β-Ga2O3.

FIG. 4.

HRXRD asymmetrical RSMs of the (024) (a) and (404) (b) peaks for (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 coherently strained to (001) β-Ga2O3.

Close modal

Next, to investigate the structural quality of the films, the a ∼ 100 nm (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 layer between two β-Ga2O3 200 nm layers was grown on a (001) β-Ga2O3 substrate. A Sn cell temperature of 800 °C and a growth temperature of 800 °C were used for all layers. The Ga and In fluxes were identical to those used for samples in Fig. 2(a). Cross section TEM was performed on these film structures as shown in Fig. 5 with no evidence of extended defects in either β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 or β-Ga2O3 layers.

FIG. 5.

Cross section TEM of the stack with the (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 layer between two β-Ga2O3 layers showing both electron beam diffraction contrast image (a) and high-angle annular dark-field (HAADF) image (b).

FIG. 5.

Cross section TEM of the stack with the (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 layer between two β-Ga2O3 layers showing both electron beam diffraction contrast image (a) and high-angle annular dark-field (HAADF) image (b).

Close modal

Finally, to determine the Al composition on the group III site, APT was performed on the same film stack. The APT tip with the elemental map of the (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 layer on the top of the (001) β-Ga2O3, showing the higher Al content in the β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 layer, is shown in Fig. 6(a). Additionally, Fig. 6(b) shows the Al and Ga fraction on the group III site throughout the depth of β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 and β-Ga2O3 layers. An average Al content of 15.6% was measured in the film via APT, similar to the calculated Al content of 14% from peak separation in XRD.

FIG. 6.

APT elemental map showing the distribution of Al and Ga on the group III site in the β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3/β-Ga2O3 heterostructure (a) as well as the depth profile of group III site fractions (b).

FIG. 6.

APT elemental map showing the distribution of Al and Ga on the group III site in the β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3/β-Ga2O3 heterostructure (a) as well as the depth profile of group III site fractions (b).

Close modal

The ability to grow (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 via MOCATAXY shows great potential for heterostructure-based devices in this orientation. While (001) oriented growth for β-Ga2O3 has been limited in PAMBE without a supplied In flux due to significant suboxide desorption, MOCATAXY has allowed for improvement of material quality and growth rates in this orientation. Application to alloys with Al has allowed for high-quality heterostructure growth in (001) orientation via MOCATAXY. Sn acts as a surfactant during (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 growth, with high intensity (002) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 peaks observed in HRXRD of films grown with both Sn and In fluxes supplied during growth. Additionally, films grown with Sn doping demonstrated smoother surface morphologies as characterized by RHEED and AFM.

The derived relationship between out-of-plane lattice spacing and Al content can be used to relate peak spacing in HRXRD and Al content. This allows for characterization of Al content via this technique for both (001) and (100) orientations. Al contents up to 15% on the group III site were achieved for (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films. Additionally, reciprocal space maps in HRXRD confirmed that the β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 was coherently strained in plane to (001) β-Ga2O3 beneath. APT also confirmed the actual Al content on the group III site. Furthermore, TEM demonstrated no evidence of extended defects in the (001) β-Ga2O3 or β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3, confirming the structural quality of the films grown via MOCATAXY in (001) orientation.

Heterostructure β-Ga2O3-based devices like MODFETs rely on high-quality β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 with maximum Al content to achieve ideal channel charge and maximum electron mobility. Smooth heterostructure interfaces and lack of extended or point defects in the films are necessary for device performance. MOCATAXY growth allows for (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films that meet these requirements. Still, the necessity of the Sn surfactant for (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 and the current maximum Al content of 15% provide current challenges for this orientation. Further study into the influence of Sn incorporation on electrical characteristics of β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 is needed to understand whether the use of this surfactant inhibits device performance. Additional growth innovations or different growth mechanisms may also be needed to increase maximum Al contents for (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 if this orientation is to be competitive for β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3-based devices.

(010) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 growth has demonstrated higher Al contents (20%–27%)23,29,35,40 via MBE and MOCVD. Recent results from Bhuiyan et al. have shown promise for (100) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 grown via MOCVD with Al contents of 17% for (100) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 coherently strained films with uniform Al content. Films with a higher average Al content of 52% were also grown but demonstrated local segregation of Al. The highest Al contents achieved for uniform, coherently strained β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films grown across various orientations are shown in Fig. 7. The reason for the difference in maximum Al contents achieved for growth on different orientations is still an open area of investigation. This could be linked to the difference in thermodynamics and kinetics of growth that also leads to different film morphologies, quality, and dopant incorporation across orientations.6–10,40 This maximum Al content could also be limited by strain, which is predicted to limit critical thickness of β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 films before relaxation, particularly for (001) orientation.34 This strain may promote Al segregation, extended defects, or the formation of new phases; however, additional study of (001) β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 with higher Al contents is needed to confirm this. Ultimately, higher Al contents are still needed if the β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3/Ga2O3 material system is to achieve the higher electron mobility prediction by Ghosh et al. and maintain high 2DEG charge.32 These material growth achievements along with the demonstration of ultra-scaled device designs that take advantage of the high critical electric field of the materials system would be important advancements for future viability of β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3/Ga2O3-based devices.

FIG. 7.

Summary of maximum Al contents achieved for uniform, coherently strained β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3/β-Ga2O3 heterostructures grown by MBE and MOCVD across various orientations.23,29,35,40,44

FIG. 7.

Summary of maximum Al contents achieved for uniform, coherently strained β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3/β-Ga2O3 heterostructures grown by MBE and MOCVD across various orientations.23,29,35,40,44

Close modal

See the supplementary material for the full stress–strain analysis for β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 coherently strained to β-Ga2O3 for the (010), (001), and (100) orientations. This includes the derivation of the relationships between the Al content and the out-of-plane lattice parameter, along with corresponding peak spacing measured via x-ray diffraction for each of these orientations.

We acknowledge funding from AFOSR through program GAME MURI (Award No. FA9550-18-1-0479) under project manager Dr. Ali Sayir. Additional support was provided through a subcontract from Agnitron Technology through ONR Program No. N00014-16-P-2058.

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Akhil Mauze: Conceptualization (lead); Data curation (lead); Formal analysis (lead); Investigation (lead); Methodology (lead); Writing – original draft (lead); Writing – review & editing (lead). Takeki Itoh: Data curation (supporting); Formal analysis (supporting); Investigation (supporting); Writing – review & editing (supporting). Yuewei Zhang: Data curation (supporting); Formal analysis (supporting); Investigation (supporting); Methodology (supporting); Writing – review & editing (supporting). Evelyn Deagueros: Data curation (supporting); Investigation (supporting); Writing – review & editing (supporting). Feng Wu: Data curation (supporting); Writing – review & editing (supporting). James S. Speck: Conceptualization (supporting); Formal analysis (supporting); Funding acquisition (lead); Investigation (supporting); Methodology (supporting); Supervision (lead); Writing – original draft (supporting); Writing – review & editing (supporting).

The data that support the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary material.

1.
M.
Orita
,
H.
Ohta
,
M.
Hirano
, and
H.
Hosono
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
77
(
25
),
4166
(
2000
).
2.
M.
Higashiwaki
,
K.
Sasaki
,
A.
Kuramata
,
T.
Masui
, and
S.
Yamakoshi
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
100
,
013504
(
2012
).
3.
Z.
Xia
,
H.
Chandrasekar
,
W.
Moore
,
C.
Wang
,
A. J.
Lee
,
J.
McGlone
,
N. K.
Kalarickal
,
A.
Arehart
,
S.
Ringel
,
F.
Yang
, and
S.
Rajan
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
115
,
252104
(
2019
).
4.
Y.
Tomm
,
J. M.
Ko
,
A.
Yoshikawa
, and
T.
Fukuda
,
Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
66
(
1–4
),
369
(
2001
).
5.
A.
Kuramata
,
K.
Koshi
,
S.
Watanabe
,
Y.
Yamaoka
,
T.
Masui
, and
S.
Yamakoshi
,
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.
55
,
1202A2
(
2016
).
6.
K.
Sasaki
,
M.
Higashiwaki
,
A.
Kuramata
,
T.
Masui
, and
S.
Yamakoshi
,
J. Cryst. Growth
378
,
591
(
2013
).
7.
E.
Ahmadi
,
O. S.
Koksaldi
,
S. W.
Kaun
,
Y.
Oshima
,
D. B.
Short
,
U. K.
Mishra
, and
J. S.
Speck
,
Appl. Phys. Express
10
(
4
),
041102
(
2017
).
8.
A. T.
Neal
,
S.
Mou
,
S.
Rafique
,
H.
Zhao
,
E.
Ahmadi
,
J. S.
Speck
,
K. T.
Stevens
,
J. D.
Blevins
,
D. B.
Thomson
,
N.
Moser
,
K. D.
Chabak
, and
G. H.
Jessen
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
113
,
062101
(
2018
).
9.
S. H.
Han
,
A.
Mauze
,
E.
Ahmadi
,
T.
Mates
,
Y.
Oshima
, and
J. S.
Speck
,
Semicond. Sci. Technol.
33
,
045001
(
2018
).
10.
A.
Mauze
,
Y.
Zhang
,
T.
Itoh
,
F.
Wu
, and
J. S.
Speck
,
APL Mater.
8
(
2
),
021104
(
2020
).
11.
M.
Baldini
,
M.
Albrecht
,
A.
Fiedler
,
K.
Irmscher
,
R.
Schewski
, and
G.
Wagner
,
ECS J. Solid State Sci. Technol.
6
(
2
),
Q3040
(
2017
).
12.
A.
Mauze
,
Y.
Zhang
,
T.
Itoh
,
E.
Ahmadi
, and
J. S.
Speck
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
117
,
222102
(
2020
).
13.
M. H.
Wong
,
C. H.
Lin
,
A.
Kuramata
,
S.
Yamakoshi
,
H.
Murakami
,
Y.
Kumagai
, and
M.
Higashiwaki
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
113
,
102103
(
2018
).
14.
F.
Alema
,
Y.
Zhang
,
A.
Osinsky
,
N.
Orischin
,
N.
Valente
,
A.
Mauze
, and
J. S.
Speck
,
APL Mater.
8
,
021110
(
2020
).
15.
A.
Mauze
,
Y.
Zhang
,
T.
Mates
,
F.
Wu
, and
J. S.
Speck
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
115
(
5
),
052102
(
2019
).
16.
H.
Murakami
,
K.
Nomura
,
K.
Goto
,
K.
Sasaki
,
K.
Kawara
,
Q. T.
Thieu
,
R.
Togashi
,
Y.
Kumagai
,
M.
Higashiwaki
,
A.
Kuramata
,
S.
Yamakoshi
,
B.
Monemar
, and
A.
Koukito
,
App. Phys. Exp.
8
,
015503
(
2015
).
17.
Y.
Zhang
,
F.
Alema
,
A.
Mauze
,
O. S.
Koksaldi
,
R.
Miller
,
A.
Osinsky
, and
J. S.
Speck
,
APL Mater.
7
,
022506
(
2019
).
18.
T.
Oshima
,
T.
Okuno
,
N.
Arai
,
N.
Suzuki
,
S.
Ohira
, and
S.
Fujita
,
Appl. Phys. Express
1
,
011202
(
2008
).
19.
Y.
Zhang
,
A.
Mauze
,
F.
Alema
,
A.
Osinsky
, and
J. S.
Speck
,
Appl. Phys. Express
12
(
4
),
044005
(
2019
).
20.
M.
Higashiwaki
,
K.
Sasaki
,
T.
Kamimura
,
M. H.
Wong
,
D.
Krishnamurthy
,
A.
Kuramata
,
T.
Masui
, and
S.
Yamakoshi
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
103
,
123511
(
2013
).
21.
M. H.
Wong
,
K.
Goto
,
Y.
Morikawa
,
A.
Kuramata
,
S.
Yamakoshi
,
H.
Murakami
,
Y.
Kumagai
, and
M.
Higashiwaki
,
Appl. Phys. Express
11
,
064102
(
2018
).
22.
E.
Ahmadi
,
O. S.
Koksaldi
,
X.
Zheng
,
T.
Mates
,
Y.
Oshima
,
U. K.
Mishra
, and
J. S.
Speck
,
Appl. Phys. Express
10
,
071101
(
2017
).
23.
S.
Krishnamoorthy
,
Z.
Xia
,
C.
Joishi
,
Y.
Zhang
,
J.
McGlone
,
J. M.
Johnson
,
M.
Brenner
,
A. R.
Arehart
,
J.
Hwang
,
S.
Lodha
, and
S.
Rajan
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
111
,
023502
(
2017
).
24.
H.
Peelaers
,
J. B.
Varley
,
J. S.
Speck
, and
C. G.
Van de Walle
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
112
,
242101
(
2018
).
25.
T.
Wang
,
W.
Li
,
C.
Ni
, and
A.
Janotti
,
Phys. Rev. Appl.
10
,
011003
(
2018
).
26.
M.
Hilfiker
,
U.
Kilic
,
A.
Mock
,
V.
Darakchieva
,
S.
Knight
,
R.
Korlacki
,
A.
Mauze
,
Y.
Zhang
,
J.
Speck
, and
M.
Schubert
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
114
,
231901
(
2019
).
27.
Y.
Zhang
,
A.
Neal
,
Z.
Xia
,
C.
Joishi
,
J. M.
Johnson
,
Y.
Zheng
,
S.
Bajaj
,
M.
Brenner
,
D.
Dorsey
,
K.
Chabak
,
G.
Jessen
,
J.
Hwang
,
S.
Mou
,
J. P.
Heremans
, and
S.
Rajan
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
112
,
173502
(
2018
).
28.
Y.
Zhang
,
C.
Joishi
,
Z.
Xia
,
M.
Brenner
,
S.
Lodha
, and
S.
Rajan
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
112
,
233503
(
2018
).
29.
P.
Ranga
,
A.
Bhattacharyya
,
A.
Rishinaramangalam
,
Y. K.
Ooi
,
M. A.
Scarpulla
,
D.
Feezell
, and
S.
Krishnamoorthy
,
Appl. Phys. Express
13
,
045501
(
2020
).
30.
P.
Ranga
,
A.
Bhattacharyya
,
A.
Chmielewski
,
S.
Roy
,
R.
Sun
,
M. A.
Scarpulla
,
N.
Asim
, and
S.
Krishnamoorthy
,
Appl. Phys. Express
14
,
025501
(
2021
).
31.
N. K.
Kalarickal
,
Z.
Xia
,
H. L.
Huang
,
W.
Moore
,
Y.
Liu
,
M.
Brenner
,
J.
Hwang
, and
S.
Rajan
,
IEEE Electron Device Lett.
42
,
899
(
2021
).
32.
K.
Ghosh
and
U.
Singisetti
,
J. Mater. Res.
32
,
224142
(
2017
).
33.
V. G.
Hill
,
R.
Roy
, and
E. F.
Osborn
,
J. Am. Ceram. Soc.
35
,
135
(
1952
).
34.
S.
Mu
,
M.
Wang
,
H.
Peelaers
, and
C. G.
Van de Walle
,
APL Mater.
8
,
091105
(
2020
).
35.
A. F. M. A.
Uddin Bhuiyan
,
Z.
Feng
,
J. M.
Johnson
,
H. L.
Huang
,
J.
Sarker
,
M.
Zhu
,
M. R.
Karim
,
B.
Mazumder
,
J.
Hwang
, and
H.
Zhao
,
APL Mater.
8
,
031104
(
2020
).
36.
J. M.
Johnson
,
H. L.
Huang
,
M.
Wang
,
S.
Mu
,
J. B.
Varley
,
A. F. M. A.
Uddin Bhuiyan
,
Z.
Feng
,
N. K.
Kalarickal
,
S.
Rajan
,
H.
Zhao
,
C. G.
Van de Walle
, and
J.
Hwang
,
APL Mater.
9
,
051103
(
2021
).
37.
S. W.
Kaun
,
F.
Wu
, and
J. S.
Speck
,
J. Vac. Sci. Techol.
33
,
041508
(
2015
).
38.
Y.
Oshima
,
E.
Ahmadi
,
S. C.
Badescu
,
F.
Wu
, and
J. S.
Speck
,
Appl. Phys. Express
9
,
061102
(
2016
).
39.
P.
Vogt
,
O.
Brandt
,
H.
Riechert
,
J.
Lahnemann
, and
O.
Bierwagen
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
119
,
196001
(
2017
).
40.
P.
Vogt
,
A.
Mauze
,
F.
Wu
,
B.
Bonef
, and
J. S.
Speck
,
Appl. Phys. Express
11
,
115503
(
2018
).
41.
P.
Mazzolini
,
P.
Vogt
,
R.
Schewski
,
C.
Wouters
,
M.
Albrecht
, and
O.
Bierwagen
,
APL Mater.
7
,
022511
(
2019
).
42.
P.
Mazzolini
,
A.
Falkenstein
,
C.
Wouters
,
R.
Schewski
,
T.
Markurt
,
Z.
Galazka
,
M.
Martin
,
M.
Albrecht
, and
O.
Bierwagen
,
APL Mater.
8
,
011107
(
2020
).
43.
C.
Kranert
,
M.
Jenderka
,
J.
Lenzner
,
M.
Lorenz
,
H.
von Wenckstern
,
R.
Schmidt-Grund
, and
M.
Grundmann
,
J. Appl. Phys.
117
,
125703
(
2015
).
44.
A. F. M. A.
Uddin Bhuiyan
,
Z.
Feng
,
J. M.
Johnson
,
H. L.
Huang
,
J.
Hwang
, and
H.
Zhao
,
Cryst. Growth Des.
20
,
6722
(
2020
).

Supplementary Material