T.S. Argunova et al.: Synchrotron radiography and x-ray topography studies of hexagonal habitus SiC bulk crystals
a central part of the boule. The most striking features are
the defects vertically aligned in the central part of the
sample (it should be noted that the radiograph presents
only half of the wafer whose central region corresponds
to the left-hand section of the image). As demonstrated in
the left three figures that are the representative images
magnified from the white square on top, this feature
shown in the phase-sensitive radiograph resulted from
closely spaced or interweaving tubular-shaped defects of
approximately 10 m in diameter. We call such bundles
of micropipes here “superpipes.” Increase or decrease in
the image intensity of this feature was attributed to the
depth variation of their sites under the wafer surface.
The existence of the superpipes suggested that micro-
their coalescing. Meanwhile those with Burgers vectors
of the same signs would interact in a more complicated
manner. Nevertheless, one can still expect some equilib-
rium distance exists where the repelling force due to the
long-range interaction is equal to the attractive force due
to the short-range one. This distance is rather small and
of the order of an average radius of interacting micro-
pipes. For smaller distance, the short-range attracting
force prevails and the micropipes coalesce. It is also pos-
sible that the long-range repelling force is suppressed by
an “external” (with respect to this micropipe pair) shear
stress due to residual thermal strains or other defects
(micropipes, inclusions, internal boundaries, etc.). Gath-
ering of a large amount of micropipes near the center of
the boule and the 2D boundaries, which was attributed to
higher defect density, resulted in the wafer regions be-
tween the group almost free from micropipes, as illus-
trated in Figs. 3 and 5. Meanwhile, in the wafers sliced
far from the seed, micropipes were scarce. Figure 6
shows the example of the microradiograph demonstrat-
1
1
pipes bundled into groups and interacted near the cen-
ter of the boule. Such micropipe bundling effect will be
further discussed in Sec. IV.
The lower part of the image (Fig. 5) provides the view
of macrodefects distribution over the close-to-seed area.
¯
ing the defects in a (1010)-oriented sample cut far from
IV. DISCUSSION
the central part of the boule. In this area micropipes were
practically absent. The macrodefects seen on top
were due to heavily damaged crystals containing frac-
tions of material that were recrystallized by a spontane-
ous growth in the cell between the holder and the back
side of the seed—the process scrupulously described
in Ref. 8.
Diffraction topographs and phase-sensitive radio-
¯
¯
graphs of the defects in (0001)-, (1010)-, and (1120)-
oriented slices provide complementary information on
the structure and possible nature of these defects. If the
¯
D defective boundaries that were parallel to the [1120]
2
direction and extended rather far from the seed [Fig. 3(a)]
were perpendicular to the basal plane, the projection of
¯
the defective boundaries onto the (1120) plane would
have a coincident edge at the hexagonal [0001] direction.
That was the direction in which micropipes gathered
in groups.
Due to the known distortion associated with the de-
fective boundaries, one would expect that the driving
force for the collection of micropipes is the accommo-
dation of the lattice shear. Such transformation of
micropipes to superpipes could therefore occur via coa-
lescence, which, under these conditions, could be ener-
getically favorable.
A micropipe can be considered as not only a super-
screw dislocation having a Burgers vector but also as a
1
1
tube having a free surface. When two pipes interact,
they always attract each other, on the one hand, due to
micropipe free surfaces, regardless of Burgers vector
signs. This force varies with distance as approximately
3
11
1
/r . On the other hand, the dislocation components are
repelling or attractive depending on their Burgers vector
signs, repelling (attractive) for the same (opposite) signs.
1
2
The force varies with distance as approximately 1/r. In
3
dislocation theory, the first (approximately 1/r ) type is
called a short-range interaction, while the second (ap-
1
2
proximately 1/r) type is a long-range interaction. Mi-
cropipes with Burgers vectors of opposite signs attract
each other due to both types of interaction, resulting in
¯
FIG. 6. SR microradiograph of (1010)-oriented SiC wafer.
J. Mater. Res., Vol. 17, No. 10, Oct 2002
2709
Downloaded: 18 Mar 2015
IP address: 169.230.243.252