Growth and characterisation of LWIR T2SL on (100)-, (211)- and (311)-oriented GaSb substrates

Abstract

Ga-free InAs/InAsSb type-II superlattice structures grown on GaSb substrates have demonstrated high performance for mid-wave infrared applications. However, realisation of long wavelength infrared photodetectors based on this material system still presents challenges, especially in terms of reduced quantum efficiency. This reduction is due, in part, to the increased type-II superlattice period required to attain longer wavelengths, as thicker periods decrease the wave-function overlap for the spatially separated quantum wells. One way to improve long wavelength infrared performance is to modify the type-II superlattice designs with a shorter superlattice period for a given wavelength, thereby increasing the wave-function overlap and the resulting optical absorption. Long wavelength infrared epitaxial structures with reduced periods have been realised by shifting the lattice constant of the type-II superlattice from GaSb to AlSb. Alternatively, epitaxial growth on substrates with orientations different than the traditional (100) surface presents another way for superlattice period reduction. In this work, the authors evaluate the performance of long wavelength infrared type-II superlattice detectors grown by molecular beam epitaxy using two different approaches to reduce the superlattice period: first, a metamorphic buffer to target the AlSb lattice parameter, and second, structures lattices matched to GaSb using substrates with different orientations. The use of the metamorphic buffer enabled a ~30% reduction in the superlattice period compared to reference baseline structures, maintaining a high quantum efficiency, but with the elevated dark current related to defects generated in the metamorphic buffer. Red-shift in a cut-off wavelength obtained from growths on high-index substrates offers a potential path to improve the infrared photodetector characteristics. Focal plane arrays were fabricated on (100), (311)A- and (211)B-oriented structures to compare the performance of each approach.