Research ArticleAPPLIED OPTICS

Self-rolling and light-trapping in flexible quantum well–embedded nanomembranes for wide-angle infrared photodetectors

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Advances  12 Aug 2016:
Vol. 2, no. 8, e1600027
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1600027
  • Fig. 1 Structure and performance of 3D tubular QWIP devices.

    (A) Schematic diagram of a 3D tubular QWIP device. (B) Conduction band diagram of a GaAs/AlGaAs QW functional nanomembrane at a positive bias. (C) Optical image of a complete 3D tubular QWIP. (D) Dark current density at various bias voltages. (E) Its spectral responsivity under a bias of 0.65 V at 60 K. (F) Infrared blackbody photocurrent image by point-by-point scanning of the S and H letters by using a 3D tubular QWIP device under a bias of 0.65 V at 60 K.

  • Fig. 2 Omnidirectional coupling of a rolled-up 3D tubular QWIP device.

    (A) Schematic diagram of a 3D tubular QWIP illuminated by the infrared radiation (IR) of a blackbody source with an angle θ to the vertical direction. (B) Its blackbody responsivity at various angles.

  • Fig. 3 Broadband and enhanced responsivity of 3D tubular QWIPs.

    (A) Spectral responsivity for 3D tubular QWIPs and their corresponding 45° edge facet QWIPs measured under a bias of 0.65 V at 60 K. (B) Their spectral responsivity ratio compared to that of the corresponding 45° edge facet QWIPs. (C) Simulated electric field distribution at the peak wavelength of 6.5 μm in a 3D tubular QWIP device. (D) Sketch map of multiple reflection of the incident infrared light in a tubular geometry.

  • Fig. 4 Rolled-up 3D tubular QWIPs with different windings.

    (A) Optical images of rolled-up 3D tubular QWIPs with 0.6, 1.3, and 2.1 winding, respectively. Scale bar, 200 μm. (B) Blackbody photocurrent and blackbody responsivity ratio as a function of winding numbers with the error bars. (C) Simulated average electric field along the radial direction of the tubular structure with the winding numbers of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0, respectively.

Supplementary Materials

  • Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2/8/e1600027/DC1

    Fabrication process of a rolled-up 3D QWIP device

    Blackbody photocurrent test

    Atmospheric absorption and photocurrent response of a 3D rolled-up tubular QWIP device

    Blackbody responsivity, spectral responsivity, and quantum efficiency

    Planar QWIP device with a 45° edge facet

    Epitaxial structure of the sample with an absorbing peak λp ≈ 3.6 μm

    Numerical simulations based on finite element method

    Diameter variation in rolled-up tubular QWIPs

    Curvature-induced strains

    fig. S1. Manufacturing steps for a rolled-up 3D tubular QWIP device.

    fig. S2. Blackbody photocurrents.

    fig. S3. Interference of the atmospheric absorption to the 3D tubular QWIP.

    fig. S4. Quantum efficiency.

    fig. S5. Planar QWIP device with a 45° edge facet.

    fig. S6. Dark current density.

    fig. S7. Simulated average electric field distribution.

    fig. S8. Diameter distribution.

    fig. S9. Effect of curvature-induced strains on photocurrent responsivity.

    References (3039)

  • Supplementary Materials

    This PDF file includes:

    • Fabrication process of a rolled-up 3D QWIP device
    • Blackbody photocurrent test
    • Atmospheric absorption and photocurrent response of a 3D rolled-up tubular QWIP device
    • Blackbody responsivity, spectral responsivity, and quantum efficiency
    • Planar QWIP device with a 45° edge facet
    • Epitaxial structure of the sample with an absorbing peak λp ≈ 3.6 mm
    • Numerical simulations based on finite element method
    • Diameter variation in rolled-up tubular QWIPs
    • Curvature-induced strains
    • fig. S1. Manufacturing steps for a rolled-up 3D tubular QWIP device.
    • fig. S2. Blackbody photocurrents.
    • fig. S3. Interference of the atmospheric absorption to the 3D tubular QWIP.
    • fig. S4. Quantum efficiency.
    • fig. S5. Planar QWIP device with a 45° edge facet.
    • fig. S6. Dark current density.
    • fig. S7. Simulated average electric field distribution.
    • fig. S8. Diameter distribution.
    • fig. S9. Effect of curvature-induced strains on photocurrent responsivity.
    • References (3039)

    Download PDF

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Navigate This Article