Band structure of strained Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_x$ alloy: a full-zone 30-band $k\cdot p$ model

Chuan Seng Tan; Dao Hua Zhang; Donguk Nam; Greg Sun; Qijie Wang; Weijun Fan; Zhigang Song

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Band structure of strained Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_x$ alloy: a full-zone 30-band $k\cdot p$ model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper extends a 30-band $k\cdot p$ model to strained Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_x$ and shows that linearly interpolating Ge and Sn strain parameters reproduces the measured $\Gamma$- and $L$-valley band gaps across strain directions and…

desk verdict Useful strained-GeSn k.p parameter set and uniaxial maps, but the [110]/[111] biaxial strain tensors are wrong and those figures need redoing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02958 v1 pith:UCNHL6SA submitted 2019-08-08 physics.app-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Zhigang Song , Weijun Fan , Chuan Seng Tan , Qijie Wang , Donguk Nam , Dao Hua Zhang , Greg Sun This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.app-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords GeSnalloy30-bandk·pmodelstrainengineeringL-valleyGamma-valleydirectbandgapdeformationpotentialfull-zonebandstructure

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper extends a 30-band $k\cdot p$ band-structure model, previously used for relaxed Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_x$ alloys, to alloys under strain. Its central claim is that a single set of strain parameters obtained by linearly interpolating the values of pure Ge and pure Sn is sufficient to reproduce the measured $\Gamma$- and $L$-valley band gaps of Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_x$ under uniaxial and biaxial strain along the [100], [110], and [111] directions. The paper validates this claim by comparing its computed band gaps with published experimental data on strained Ge and on compressively strained GeSn samples. If the claim holds, it gives device designers a computationally inexpensive way to identify the Sn fraction and strain combination that turns the alloy into a direct-bandgap semiconductor, the key requirement for efficient light emitters on silicon.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 30-band $k\cdot p$ Hamiltonian whose strain perturbation appears as block matrices $W_{\Gamma}$ (k-independent) and $W_k$ (k-dependent) written in terms of deformation-potential coefficients for each band representation. Strain tensors for uniaxial and biaxial strain along [100], [110], and [111] are built from elastic constants and compliances, and every alloy parameter is obtained by linear interpolation between fitted Ge and Sn endpoints. This machinery yields full-zone band structures at a fraction of the cost of ab initio methods, which is what makes the model practical for device-scale calculations.

What would settle it

Measure the $L$-valley band gaps, or better the $L$-valley energy splitting, of Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_x$ samples at several intermediate compositions under precisely known biaxial or uniaxial strain along [110] or [111]. The model predicts specific splitting patterns and magnitudes (for instance, a 2+2 grouping under [110] strain whose gap difference is set by $\Xi_u^L \varepsilon_{xy}$); a systematic deviation beyond experimental uncertainty would show that the linear-interpolation premise is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the full-zone 30-band $k\cdot p$ Hamiltonian remains accurate for strained Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_x$ when the strain perturbation blocks are built from deformation-potential coefficients linearly interpolated between single-crystal Ge and Sn. The Sn endpoint coefficients are fixed once by fitting the model to MBJLDA reference band structures of strained Sn, after which no additional fitting is needed for any alloy composition. With this construction the model reproduces the strain dependence of the $\Gamma$- and $L$-valley band gaps of Ge and GeSn samples, including the indirect-to-direct crossover, and it quantifies how the four $L$-valleys split into groups under strain along [110] and [111] while remaining degenerate under [100] strain. The paper concludes that this model can serve as an efficient design tool for GeSn-based heterostructures and nanostructures.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true strain-relevant parameters of Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_x$ follow a straight line in Sn fraction between the values of Ge and Sn, where the Sn endpoint is itself fixed by fitting to MBJLDA calculations under biaxial strain along [001] and [111] only.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Combining tensile strain with Sn alloying lowers the Sn fraction needed for the indirect-to-direct transition, and the model quantifies the required strain for each composition along each crystal direction.
Strain along [110] and [111] splits the four $L$-valleys into groups whose band gaps move in opposite directions under uniaxial versus biaxial strain, so device designs for those orientations must account for a more complex conduction-band landscape.
Compressive strain, as present in GeSn grown on Si or Ge substrates, works against the transition to direct bandgap; the model quantifies how much tensile strain or a higher-Sn buffer layer is needed to compensate.
The model's computational efficiency makes it suitable for strained heterostructures and nanostructures, where ab initio calculations would be prohibitively expensive.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same linear-interpolation parameterization could plausibly extend to ternary SiGeSn alloys by interpolating among Si, Ge, and Sn endpoints, giving a uniform design tool for the group-IV alloy family.
Because the model predicts very different $L$-valley splitting behavior under [100] versus [110]/[111] strain, a dedicated photoluminescence or electroreflectance experiment on strained GeSn could measure the deformation potential $\Xi_u^L$ directly and so independently test the interpolation.
The paper reports that its band-gap predictions run consistently higher than the GeSn experimental data; this hints that either the linearly interpolated Sn parameters or the reported sample strain values need refinement, so quantitative device design may still require sample-specific calibration.
The model could be extended to compute strain-dependent effective masses and density of states, enabling direct modeling of gain spectra and transport in strained GeSn devices.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. The genuinely useful part is Table I: a complete set of strain parameters for a 30-band k.p Hamiltonian of strained GeSn, built from the Rideau formalism and linear interpolation between Ge and Sn. The paper then maps Γ and L gaps versus uniaxial/biaxial strain along [100], [110], [111] for Sn up to 16%. If the model is right, that is exactly the kind of fast tool device people want for choosing strain/composition. The Ge uniaxial validation is solid: the predicted indirect-to-direct crossover at 5.28% strain compares well with the measured 5.6%, and the biaxial Ge data points that exist are matched reasonably. The authors are also honest that their GeSn predictions run consistently high.

The soft spots are real, and one is load-bearing. First, the Fig. 1 agreement between the 30-band model and MBJLDA is not a validation; it's the calibration. The Sn strain parameters were fit to those very curves. Second, linear interpolation of deformation potentials in x is assumed, not tested. Third, and most serious: the biaxial strain tensors in Eqs. (13)–(14) use the (001) relation ε⊥ = −2C12/C11 ε|| for all growth directions. For a coherent film on (110) or (111), the zero-traction condition on the surface normal includes C44, so the out-of-plane strain is different. With Ge elastic constants, ε⊥/ε|| is about −0.45 for [110] and −0.37 for [111], not −0.75. That changes both the hydrostatic trace and the shear component that drives the L-valley splitting, so the biaxial panels of Figs. 3 and 4 and the biaxial branches of Figs. 3(c)/4(c) are quantitatively off even if every k.p parameter is correct. The experimental checks in Figs. 5 and 6 are all [001]-type strain, so they don't exercise these predictions. This is a fixable error, but it's a real one.

Who is the paper for? People modeling GeSn optoelectronics who want a fast full-zone k.p model. They should use it once the [110]/[111] biaxial tensors are corrected. I'd send it to peer review—the methodology and parameter set deserve referee time—but I'd ask for major revision: correct the strain tensors, redo the affected figures, and add a note about the interpolation assumption. The central idea survives; the specific biaxial maps don't.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends a previously reported full-zone 30-band k.p model for relaxed Ge1-xSnx alloys to the strained case. Strain-relevant parameters for the alloy are obtained by linearly interpolating between Ge and Sn endpoint values; the Sn strain parameters are optimized against MBJLDA band-structure calculations under biaxial [001] and [111] strain. The paper then computes Γ- and L-valley band gaps for uniaxial and biaxial strain along the [100], [110], and [111] directions for Sn compositions up to 16%, maps indirect-to-direct crossover conditions, and compares selected predictions with published experimental data for Ge and GeSn. The authors conclude that the model is validated and can serve as an efficient design tool for strained Ge1-xSnx devices.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the model would be a useful, inexpensive complement to ab initio methods for strain and composition engineering of GeSn photonic devices. The paper has clear strengths: it gives a complete table of strain parameters (Table I), treats multiple strain directions, and makes contact with experimental data; the uniaxial Ge comparison leading to a crossover strain of 5.28% versus the extrapolated experimental 5.6% is a genuine positive result. However, the validation is partly circular, the biaxial strain tensors for [110] and [111] contain a load-bearing elasticity error, and the GeSn experimental validation is thin and systematically biased. These issues mean that the central quantitative claims are not yet established, although they appear to be fixable within the scope of a revision. The paper does not provide code or machine-checked proofs, but the parameter table and equations would permit reproduction once corrected.

major comments (4)

[Section II, Eqs. (12)-(14)] The biaxial strain tensors for [110] and [111] are constructed using ε⊥ = -2C12/C11 ε||, which is the zero-traction condition only for a (001)-oriented film. For a coherent (110) film the correct ratio is ε⊥/ε|| = -(C11 + 3C12 - 2C44)/(C11 + C12 + 2C44), which is approximately -0.45 for Ge, and for (111) it is approximately -0.37, not -0.75. Both the hydrostatic part and the shear component εxy that controls the L-valley splitting are therefore mis-specified for biaxial strain along [110] and [111]. Consequently the biaxial panels of Figs. 3(b), 4(b) and the biaxial branches of Figs. 3(c), 4(c) are not quantitatively reliable, even if every 30-band parameter is correct. The experimental comparisons in Figs. 5 and 6 involve [001]-type strain and do not test this part of the model.
[Section III, Fig. 1] The Sn strain parameters in Table I are optimized by fitting the 30-band model to MBJLDA band structures under biaxial strain, and Fig. 1 then compares the same two quantities. The good agreement in Fig. 1 is therefore partly by construction and cannot serve as an independent validation of the strain Hamiltonian. The genuinely independent tests are the Ge comparisons using parameters from Ref. [34] and the GeSn experimental comparisons in Figs. 5 and 6, which are not fitted targets. The text should state this distinction explicitly and soften the claim that Fig. 1 'clearly validates' the model.
[Section II, Table I] All Ge1-xSnx strain parameters are obtained by linear interpolation between the Ge and Sn endpoint values, but no independent check of this assumption at intermediate compositions is provided. Because every composition-dependent prediction in Figs. 2-4 and the GeSn comparisons in Fig. 6 inherit this assumption, it is load-bearing. The paper should test it, for example by comparing the 30-band model with MBJLDA calculations for at least two intermediate Sn compositions under a representative strain state, or by quantifying the sensitivity of the predicted crossover strains and gaps to plausible deviations from linear interpolation.
[Section III, Fig. 6] The GeSn experimental validation is limited to two data sets, no error bars are given, and the text states that the prediction is 'consistently higher' than the published results. The claim that agreement is 'reasonable' does not quantify the discrepancy or establish predictive utility. The authors should report a quantitative measure of agreement (for example, mean and maximum deviation), discuss the systematic offset, and either add more experimental comparisons or clearly state which predicted features (e.g., crossover trends rather than absolute gaps) are validated.

minor comments (5)

[Section III, text after Eq. (17)] The stray word 'where' appears at the end of the [111] discussion ('respectively.where'); it should be removed.
[Section II, Table I] The symbols a12, b12, c12, d12, and the various coupling parameters are not defined in the text; they should be tied to the blocks of the Hamiltonian in Section II so that Table I can be used by readers.
[Section II] The Ge and Sn endpoint values of C11, C12, and C44 used for the linear interpolation are not stated; giving them would make the interpolation reproducible.
[Figures 2-4] The text refers to 'red' and 'blue' curves in Fig. 2(c) and similar panels, but the captions do not use these color terms consistently; the captions should identify every color mentioned in the text.
[Section III, Fig. 5] The phrase 'The agreement is rather nearly perfect remarkable for uniaxial results' is awkward and should be rewritten.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Fig. 1 validation is circular because Sn strain parameters were fitted to the same MBJLDA bands shown; GeSn alloy predictions retain independent experimental support.

fitted input called prediction [Section III (Results and Discussion), Fig. 1 and surrounding text]
"Since the input parameters of the 30-band model for strained Ge have been previously optimized [34], we only need to optimize the input parameters for Sn. ... the band structures of Sn in the presence of biaxial tensile strains along [001] and [111] are calculated. ... MBJLDA ... We can see from Fig. 1 that the two band structures obtained by MBJLDA and the 30-band model are nicely matched globally across the full BZ except around the X point which is not our interests for the Ge 1−xSnx alloy."

The Sn strain-relevant 30-band parameters are obtained by optimizing the 30-band model to MBJLDA band structures of strained Sn (using the same hill-climbing technique cited from the authors' prior work). Fig. 1 then compares the 30-band model against those same MBJLDA bands for the same strain directions and magnitudes, and the agreement is presented as validation. This agreement is not an independent check: it is the fitting target, so the match is guaranteed by construction. The circularity is partial rather than total because the subsequent Ge1−xSnx alloy band-gap predictions in Figs. 2-4 and the comparisons with published experimental data in Figs. 5-6 were not used to fit the Sn parameters and therefore provide external grounding for the central claim.

full rationale

The main circular step is the Fig. 1 'validation': the Sn strain parameters were explicitly optimized to reproduce the MBJLDA band structures under [001] and [111] biaxial strain, and Fig. 1 compares the fitted model with those same MBJLDA data. That agreement is a measure of the fit, not an independent prediction. However, the paper's central claim for Ge1−xSnx does not reduce entirely to this fit. The strain-relevant parameters for the alloy are obtained by linear interpolation between Ge and Sn, and the computed band-gap trends in Figs. 2-4 and the comparisons with experimental data in Figs. 5-6 were not fitted to those targets. The strain-tensor derivation for [110] and [111] biaxial strain uses the (001) Poisson relation, which is a correctness concern rather than a circularity concern. The self-citations to the authors' earlier relaxed 30-band model and to Rideau et al. for strained Ge parameters are normal calibration references, not load-bearing circular reasoning, because the final GeSn predictions are tested against external experimental data. Overall, one fitted-input-called-validation plot gives a partial circularity score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is parametric, not deductive. The model depends on roughly thirty strain coefficients and elastic constants, most obtained by linear interpolation between Ge values from the literature and Sn values optimized here to MBJLDA calculations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (11)

Gamma25l deformation potentials l, m, n = l=-3.8+7.276x, m=4.9-4.947x, n=-9.527+12.684x (eV)
Values are linear interpolations between Ge and optimized Sn endpoints; the Sn endpoint is fitted to MBJLDA bands under biaxial strain in this work.
Gamma15 deformation potentials l', m', n' = l'=6.026+34.467x, m'=0.762-40.103x, n'=-10.134+8.697x (eV)
Same interpolation and fitting scheme as the Gamma25l block; these coefficients appear in the strained 30-band Hamiltonian.
Gamma25u deformation potentials l'', m'', n'' = l''=-20.692+14.536x, m''=9.119-8.853x, n''=0.481+0.054x (eV)
Sn endpoint optimized here to MBJLDA; Ge endpoint taken from Ref. [34].
Gamma12 strain coefficients a12, b12, c12, d12 = a12=6.815-6.358x, b12=6.798-7.676x, c12=7.745-7.553x, d12=4.858-6.222x (eV)
These coefficients define the Gamma12 strain block in Eq. (8); their alloy values come from linear interpolation.
Gamma2 and Gamma1 diagonal deformation potentials aG2l, aG2u, aG1l, aG1u = aG2l=-7.181+4.152x, aG2u=4.490+11.955x, aG1l=14.171-15.427x, aG1u=-0.492-16.491x (eV)
Sn endpoint fitted to MBJLDA; Ge endpoint from Ref. [34].
Gamma25l-Gamma25u off-diagonal coupling potentials l, m, n = l=-24.139-18.805x, m=-0.124+0.513x, n=-0.112-2.257x (eV)
Inter-band coupling coefficients in the strain Hamiltonian; obtained by interpolation.
f coupling potentials (Gamma1u-Gamma25u, Gamma1l-Gamma25l, Gamma1u-Gamma25l, Gamma15-Gamma2l, Gamma15-Gamma2u) = 11.220-5.050x, -7.666-3.630x, -12.210+19.503x, -22.242+38.110x, 19.925+24.338x (eV)
Fitted/optimized at the Sn endpoint and interpolated linearly for the alloy.
g coupling potentials Gamma12-Gamma2u and Gamma12-Gamma2l = gG12,G2u=-5.000+3.279x, gG12,G2l=-5.354-4.225x (eV)
Inter-band strain coupling coefficients from Table I.
a coupling potentials Gamma2l-Gamma2u and Gamma1l-Gamma1u = aG2l,G2u=-1.211-1.381x, aG1l,G1u=-5.927+14.470x (eV)
Inter-band strain coupling coefficients from Table I.
Elastic constants C11, C12, C44 = linear interpolation between Ge and Sn values from Refs. [5,6]
Used in Eqs. (12)-(18) to build strain tensors; the interpolation is a modeling choice, not derived.
Ge endpoint strain parameters from Ref. [34] = values from Rideau et al. optimized to first-principles data
Imported without re-optimization; the paper only optimizes Sn parameters.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The strained 30-band Hamiltonian formalism of Rideau et al. [34] applies to GeSn as well as Si, Ge, and SiGe.
The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) and the strain blocks in Eqs. (2)-(11) are taken from [34] without re-derivation; the paper assumes the same symmetry and coupling structure holds for GeSn.
domain assumption All alloy strain parameters and elastic constants vary linearly with Sn composition x.
No experimental or ab initio evidence is provided for linearity of deformation potentials; the entire interpolation in Table I rests on this premise.
domain assumption MBJLDA band structures for alpha-Sn under biaxial strain are accurate enough to calibrate Sn parameters.
The Sn endpoint fit uses MBJLDA as ground truth; if MBJLDA is biased, the fitted parameters inherit the bias.
domain assumption The elastic relation epsilon_perp = -2 C12/C11 epsilon_par holds for biaxial strain on [100], [110], and [111] substrates.
Standard continuum elasticity, but anisotropic corrections are ignored in Eqs. (12)-(14).
domain assumption The valence band maximum of unstrained GeSn is set to zero energy reference.
All energies are referenced to the unstrained VBM; a gauge choice that does not affect gaps but affects band offset predictions.
domain assumption Model-solid theory describes L-valley splitting under shear strain.
Used in Section III to explain L-valley degeneracy lifting; the paper does not independently verify the deformation potential values used in that explanation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Band structure of strained Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_x$ alloy: a full-zone 30-band $k\cdot p$ model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UCNHL6SA

@misc{pith2026190802958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Band structure of strained Ge$_1-x$Sn$_x$ alloy: a full-zone 30-band $k\cdot p$ model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UCNHL6SA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02958}
}

abstract

We extend the previous 30-band $k$$\cdot$$p$ model effectively employed for relaxed Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_{x}$ alloy to the case of strained Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_{x}$ alloy. The strain-relevant parameters for the 30-band $k$$\cdot$$p$ model are obtained by using linear interpolation between the values of single crystal of Ge and Sn that are from literatures and optimizations. We specially investigate the dependence of band-gap at $L$-valley and $\Gamma$-valley with different Sn composition under uniaxial and biaxial strain along [100], [110] and [111] directions. The good agreement between our theoretical predictions and experimental data validates the effectiveness of our model. Our 30-band $k$$\cdot$$p$ model and relevant input parameters successfully applied to relaxed and strained Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_{x}$ alloy offers a powerful tool for the optimization of sophisticated devices made from such alloy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02958 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The bandgaps at Γ-valley (solid) and L-valley (dashed) of Ge1−xSnx alloy with different Sn compositions vs uniaxial strain (a) and biaxial strain (b) along [100] direction. Ge1−xSnx alloy from indirect-to-direct bandgap for Sn composition below that of the crossover point for relaxed Ge1−xSnx marked at the vertical line and the compressive strain required for Sn composition above the crossover point to transition fr… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The bandgaps at Γ-valley (solid) and L-valley (dashed and dotted) of Ge1−xSnx alloy with different Sn compositions vs uniaxial strain (a) and biaxial strain (b) along [110] direction. Different from the [100] case, [110] strain can lift the degeneracy of the L-valleys into 2 groups, g 110 1 (dashed) and g 110 2 (dotted), each is of 2-degeneracy. (c) The [110] tensile strain of uniaxial (red) and biaxial (blue) requi… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The bandgaps at Γ-valley (solid) and L-valley (dashed and dotted) of Ge1−xSnx alloy with different Sn compositions vs uniaxial strain (a) and biaxial strain (b) along [111] direction. Here the degeneracy of the L-valley into 1-degeneracy at L1-valley (dashed) and 3-deg…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of bandgap prediction calculated by 30-b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Bandgaps relative to (a) HH band and (b) LH band calcul [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[100]

uniaxial tensile strain,” Photonics Res., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. A8–A13, 2014

work page 2014
[1]

Lasing in direct-bandgap GeSn alloy grown on Si,

S. Wirths, R. Geiger, N. V on Den Driesch, G. Mussler, T. St oica, S. Mantl, Z. Ikonic, M. Luysberg, S. Chiussi, J. Hartmann et al., “Lasing in direct-bandgap GeSn alloy grown on Si,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 88, 2015

work page 2015
[34]

Strained si, ge, and Si 1−xGe1−x alloys modeled with a ﬁrst-principles-optimized full-zone k·p method,

D. Rideau, M. Feraille, L. Ciampolini, M. Minondo, C. Ta vernier, H. Jaouen, and A. Ghetti, “Strained si, ge, and Si 1−xGe1−x alloys modeled with a ﬁrst-principles-optimized full-zone k·p method,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 74, no. 19, p. 195208, 2006

work page 2006
[2]

Mid-infrared light emission > 3µ m wavelength from tensile strained GeSn microdisks,

R. Millar, D. Dumas, K. Gallacher, P . Jahandar, C. MacGre gor, M. My- ronov, and D. Paul, “Mid-infrared light emission > 3µ m wavelength from tensile strained GeSn microdisks,” Opt. Express , vol. 25, no. 21, pp. 25 374–25 385, 2017

work page 2017
[3]

Short-wave infrared leds from GeSn/SiGeSn multiple quant um wells,

D. Stange, N. V on den Driesch, D. Rainko, S. Roesgaard, I. Povstugar, J.-M. Hartmann, T. Stoica, Z. Ikonic, S. Mantl, D. Gr¨ utzmac her et al. , “Short-wave infrared leds from GeSn/SiGeSn multiple quant um wells,” Optica, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 185–188, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Sn-based w aveguide pin photodetector with strained GeSn/Ge multiple-quantum -well active layer,

Y .-H. Huang, G.-E. Chang, H. Li, and H. Cheng, “Sn-based w aveguide pin photodetector with strained GeSn/Ge multiple-quantum -well active layer,” Opt. Lett. , vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 1652–1655, 2017

work page 2017
[5]

Madelung, Semiconductor: Data Handbook

O. Madelung, Semiconductor: Data Handbook . Springer, 2012

work page 2012
[6]

M. S. Shur, Handbook series on semiconductor parameters . World Scientiﬁc, 1996, vol. 1

work page 1996

Show all 44 references

[7]

Uniaxially stressed germanium with fundamental direct band gap,

R. Geiger, T. Zabel, E. Marin, A. Gassenq, J.-M. Hartmann , J. Widiez, J. Escalante, K. Guilloy, N. Pauc, D. Rouchon et al., “Uniaxially stressed germanium with fundamental direct band gap,” arXiv:1603.03454, 2015

2015 arXiv
[8]

Germanium under high tensile stress: nonlinear dependenc e of direct band gap vs strain,

K. Guilloy, N. Pauc, A. Gassenq, Y .-M. Niquet, J.-M. Esca lante, I. Duchemin, S. Tardif, G. Osvaldo Dias, D. Rouchon, J. Widie z et al. , “Germanium under high tensile stress: nonlinear dependenc e of direct band gap vs strain,” ACS photonics, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 1907–1911, 2016

1907
[9]

D. S. Sukhdeo, D. Nam, J.-H. Kang, M. L. Brongersma, and K. C. Saraswat, “Direct bandgap germanium-on-silicon inferred from 5.7 %
[10]

Strained-Germanium nanostructures for infrared photoni cs,

C. Boztug, J. R. Snchez-Prez, F. Cavallo, M. G. Lagally, and R. Paiella, “Strained-Germanium nanostructures for infrared photoni cs,” ACS Nano, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 3136–3151, 2014

2014
[11]

Group IV direct band ga p photonics: Methods, challenges, and opportunities,

R. Geiger, T. Zabel, and H. Sigg, “Group IV direct band ga p photonics: Methods, challenges, and opportunities,” Frontiers in Materials , vol. 2, p. 52, 2015

2015
[12]

Dir ect-bandgap light-emitting germanium in tensilely strained nanomembr anes,

J. R. S´ anchez-P´ erez, C. Boztug, F. Chen, F. F. Sudradj at, D. M. Paskiewicz, R. Jacobson, M. G. Lagally, and R. Paiella, “Dir ect-bandgap light-emitting germanium in tensilely strained nanomembr anes,” PNAS, vol. 108, no. 47, pp. 18 893–18 898, 2011

2011
[13]

Study of the light emission in Ge lay ers and strained membranes on Si substrates,

A. Gassenq, K. Guilloy, N. Pauc, J.-M. Hartmann, G. O. Di as, D. Rou- chon, S. Tardif, J. Escalante, I. Duchemin, Y .-M. Niquet, A. Chelnokov, V . Reboud, and V . Calvo, “Study of the light emission in Ge lay ers and strained membranes on Si substrates,” Thin Solid Films , vol...

2016
[14]

Direct and ind irect band gaps in Ge under biaxial tensile strain investigated by phot oluminescence and photoreﬂectance studies,

D. Saladukha, M. B. Clavel, F. Murphy-Armando, G. Green e-Diniz, M. Gr¨ uning, M. K. Hudait, and T. J. Ochalski, “Direct and ind irect band gaps in Ge under biaxial tensile strain investigated by phot oluminescence and photoreﬂectance studies,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 97, p. 19530...

2018
[15]

Design of a Si-based latt ice-matched room-temperature GeSn/GeSiSn multi-quantum-well mid-in frared laser diode,

G. Sun, R. Soref, and H. Cheng, “Design of a Si-based latt ice-matched room-temperature GeSn/GeSiSn multi-quantum-well mid-in frared laser diode,” Opt. Express , vol. 18, no. 19, pp. 19 957–19 965, 2010

2010
[16]

Design of an electrically pumped SiGeSn/GeSn/SiG eSn double- heterostructure midinfrared laser,

——, “Design of an electrically pumped SiGeSn/GeSn/SiG eSn double- heterostructure midinfrared laser,” J. Appl. Phys. , vol. 108, no. 3, p. 033107, 2010

2010
[17]

The direct and indirect bandgaps of unstrained Si xGe1−x−ySny and their photonic device applications,

P . Moontragoon, R. Soref, and Z. Ikonic, “The direct and indirect bandgaps of unstrained Si xGe1−x−ySny and their photonic device applications,” J. Appl. Phys. , vol. 112, no. 7, p. 073106, 2012

2012
[18]

Si–Ge–Sn alloys: From growth to applications,

S. Wirths, D. Buca, and S. Mantl, “Si–Ge–Sn alloys: From growth to applications,” Prog. Cryst. Growth Charact. Mater . , vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 1–39, 2016

2016
[19]

Indirect-to-di rect gap transi- tion in strained and unstrained SnxGe1−x alloys,

C. Eckhardt, K. Hummer, and G. Kresse, “Indirect-to-di rect gap transi- tion in strained and unstrained SnxGe1−x alloys,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 89, p. 165201, Apr 2014

2014
[20]

High-k gate stac ks on low bandgap tensile strained Ge and GeSn alloys for ﬁeld-effect transistors,

S. Wirths, D. Stange, M.-A. Pampilln, A. T. Tiedemann, G . Mussler, A. Fox, U. Breuer, B. Baert, E. San Andrs, N. D. Nguyen, J.-M. Hartmann, Z. Ikonic, S. Mantl, and D. Buca, “High-k gate stac ks on low bandgap tensile strained Ge and GeSn alloys for ﬁeld-effect transistors,” ...

2015
[21]

Accurate strain measu rements in highly strained Ge microbridges,

A. Gassenq, S. Tardif, K. Guilloy, G. Osvaldo Dias, N. Pa uc, I. Duchemin, D. Rouchon, J.-M. Hartmann, J. Widiez, J. Escal ante, Y .-M. Niquet, R. Geiger, T. Zabel, H. Sigg, J. Faist, A. Cheln okov, F. Rieutord, V . Reboud, and V . Calvo, “Accurate strain measu rements in high...

2016
[22]

Str ain- induced pseudoheterostructure nanowires conﬁning carrie rs at room temperature with nanoscale-tunable band proﬁles,

D. Nam, D. S. Sukhdeo, J.-H. Kang, J. Petykiewicz, J. H. L ee, W. S. Jung, J. Vuckovic, M. L. Brongersma, and K. C. Saraswat, “Str ain- induced pseudoheterostructure nanowires conﬁning carrie rs at room temperature with nanoscale-tunable band proﬁles,” Nano Letters, vol. 13, n...

2013
[23]

Study of carrier statistics in uniaxially s trained Ge for a low-threshold ge laser,

D. Nam, D. S. Sukhdeo, S. Gupta, J. Kang, M. L. Brongersma , and K. C. Saraswat, “Study of carrier statistics in uniaxially s trained Ge for a low-threshold ge laser,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 16–22, 2014

2014
[24]

Room tem perature lasing unraveled by a strong resonance between gain and para sitic absorption in uniaxially strained germanium,

S. Gupta, D. Nam, J. Vuckovic, and K. Saraswat, “Room tem perature lasing unraveled by a strong resonance between gain and para sitic absorption in uniaxially strained germanium,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 97, p. 155127, Apr 2018

2018
[25]

Study of material and optical properties of Si xGe1−x−ySny alloys for si-based optoelectronic device applications,

B. Alharthi, J. Margetis, H. Tran, S. Al-kabi, W. Dou, S. A. Ghetmiri, A. Mosleh, J. Tolle, W. Du, M. Mortazavi et al., “Study of material and optical properties of Si xGe1−x−ySny alloys for si-based optoelectronic device applications,” Opt. Mater . Express, vol. 7, no. 10, pp...

2017
[26]

Structura l and optical characteristics of Ge 1−xSnx/Ge superlattices grown on Ge-buffered Si (001) wafers,

J.-Z. Chen, H. Li, H. Cheng, and G.-E. Chang, “Structura l and optical characteristics of Ge 1−xSnx/Ge superlattices grown on Ge-buffered Si (001) wafers,” Opt. Mater . Express, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1178–1185, 2014

2014
[27]

Recent progress in GeSn growth and GeSn-based photonic devices,

J. Zheng, Z. Liu, C. Xue, C. Li, Y . Zuo, B. Cheng, and Q. Wan g, “Recent progress in GeSn growth and GeSn-based photonic devices,” Journal of Semiconductors, vol. 39, no. 6, p. 061006, 2018

2018
[28]

Investigation of optical transitions in a SiGeSn/GeSn/SiGeSn single quantum well structure,

W. Du, S. A. Ghetmiri, J. Margetis, S. Al-Kabi, Y . Zhou, J . Liu, G. Sun, R. A. Soref, J. Tolle, B. Li et al. , “Investigation of optical transitions in a SiGeSn/GeSn/SiGeSn single quantum well structure,” J. Appl. Phys. , vol. 122, no. 12, p. 123102, 2017

2017
[29]

Wave-function engineering and absorption spectr a in Si 0.16Ge0.84/Ge0.94Sn0.06/Si0.16Ge0.84 strained on relaxed Si0.10Ge0.90 type i quantum well,

N. Y ahyaoui, N. Sﬁna, J.-L. Lazzari, A. Bournel, and M. Said, “Wave-function engineering and absorption spectr a in Si 0.16Ge0.84/Ge0.94Sn0.06/Si0.16Ge0.84 strained on relaxed Si0.10Ge0.90 type i quantum well,” J. Appl. Phys. , vol. 115, no. 3, p. 033109, 2014

2014
[30]

Indirect-to-direct b and gap transition in relaxed and strained Ge 1−x−ySixSny ternary alloys,

A. Attiaoui and O. Moutanabbir, “Indirect-to-direct b and gap transition in relaxed and strained Ge 1−x−ySixSny ternary alloys,” J. Appl. Phys. , vol. 116, no. 6, p. 063712, 2014

2014
[31]

The electroni c band structure of Ge1−xSnx in the full composition range: indirect, direct, and invert ed gaps regimes, band offsets, and the Burstein-Moss effect,

M. Polak, P . Scharoch, and R. Kudrawiec, “The electroni c band structure of Ge1−xSnx in the full composition range: indirect, direct, and invert ed gaps regimes, band offsets, and the Burstein-Moss effect,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , vol. 50, no. 19, p. 195103, 2017

2017
[32]

Electronic ba nd structure of compressively strained Ge 1−xSnx with x < 0.11 studied by contact- less electroreﬂectance,

K. Zelazna, M. Polak, P . Scharoch, J. Seraﬁnczuk, M. Gla dysiewicz, J. Misiewicz, J. Dekoster, and R. Kudrawiec, “Electronic ba nd structure of compressively strained Ge 1−xSnx with x < 0.11 studied by contact- less electroreﬂectance,” Appl. Phys. Lett. , vol. 106, no. 14, p....

2015
[33]

Band structure of Ge 1−xSnx alloy: a full-zone 30-band k·p model,

Z. Song, W. J. Fan, C. S. Tan, Q. J. Wang, D. Nam, D. H. Zhang , and G. Sun, “Band structure of Ge 1−xSnx alloy: a full-zone 30-band k·p model,” New Journal of Physics , 2019

2019
[35]

A. D. Becke and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys. , vol. 124, no. 22, p. 221101, 2006

2006
[36]

Non-linear behavior of germanium ele ctronic band structure under high strain,

J. M. Escalante, “Non-linear behavior of germanium ele ctronic band structure under high strain,” Comput. Mater . Sci. , vol. 152, pp. 223 – 227, 2018. 8

2018
[37]

Piezo-electroreﬂectance in Ge, GaAs, and Si,

F. H. Pollak and M. Cardona, “Piezo-electroreﬂectance in Ge, GaAs, and Si,” Phys. Rev., vol. 172, pp. 816–837, Aug 1968

1968
[38]

Band lineups and deformation potent ials in the model-solid theory,

C. G. V an de Walle, “Band lineups and deformation potent ials in the model-solid theory,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 39, pp. 1871–1883, Jan 1989

1989
[39]

Wada and L

K. Wada and L. C. Kimerling, Photonics and electronics with germa- nium. John Wiley, 2015

2015
[40]

Efﬁcient iterative sch emes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set,

G. Kresse and J. Furthm ¨ uller, “Efﬁcient iterative sch emes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 54, pp. 11 169–11 186, Oct 1996

1996
[41]

Generalized g radient approximation made simple,

J. P . Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, “Generalized g radient approximation made simple,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 77, pp. 3865–3868, Oct 1996

1996
[42]

Projector augmented-wave method,

P . E. Bl¨ ochl, “Projector augmented-wave method,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 50, pp. 17 953–17 979, Dec 1994

1994
[43]

Special points for Brill ouin-zone integrations,

H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, “Special points for Brill ouin-zone integrations,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 13, pp. 5188–5192, Jun 1976. APPENDIX The band structure calculations were performed by using the Vienna ab initio simulation package (V ASP) [40] within the generalized grad...

1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [100]

uniaxial tensile strain,” Photonics Res., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. A8–A13, 2014

work page 2014

[2] [1]

Lasing in direct-bandgap GeSn alloy grown on Si,

S. Wirths, R. Geiger, N. V on Den Driesch, G. Mussler, T. St oica, S. Mantl, Z. Ikonic, M. Luysberg, S. Chiussi, J. Hartmann et al., “Lasing in direct-bandgap GeSn alloy grown on Si,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 88, 2015

work page 2015

[3] [34]

Strained si, ge, and Si 1−xGe1−x alloys modeled with a ﬁrst-principles-optimized full-zone k·p method,

D. Rideau, M. Feraille, L. Ciampolini, M. Minondo, C. Ta vernier, H. Jaouen, and A. Ghetti, “Strained si, ge, and Si 1−xGe1−x alloys modeled with a ﬁrst-principles-optimized full-zone k·p method,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 74, no. 19, p. 195208, 2006

work page 2006

[4] [2]

Mid-infrared light emission > 3µ m wavelength from tensile strained GeSn microdisks,

R. Millar, D. Dumas, K. Gallacher, P . Jahandar, C. MacGre gor, M. My- ronov, and D. Paul, “Mid-infrared light emission > 3µ m wavelength from tensile strained GeSn microdisks,” Opt. Express , vol. 25, no. 21, pp. 25 374–25 385, 2017

work page 2017

[5] [3]

Short-wave infrared leds from GeSn/SiGeSn multiple quant um wells,

D. Stange, N. V on den Driesch, D. Rainko, S. Roesgaard, I. Povstugar, J.-M. Hartmann, T. Stoica, Z. Ikonic, S. Mantl, D. Gr¨ utzmac her et al. , “Short-wave infrared leds from GeSn/SiGeSn multiple quant um wells,” Optica, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 185–188, 2017

work page 2017

[6] [4]

Sn-based w aveguide pin photodetector with strained GeSn/Ge multiple-quantum -well active layer,

Y .-H. Huang, G.-E. Chang, H. Li, and H. Cheng, “Sn-based w aveguide pin photodetector with strained GeSn/Ge multiple-quantum -well active layer,” Opt. Lett. , vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 1652–1655, 2017

work page 2017

[7] [5]

Madelung, Semiconductor: Data Handbook

O. Madelung, Semiconductor: Data Handbook . Springer, 2012

work page 2012

[8] [6]

M. S. Shur, Handbook series on semiconductor parameters . World Scientiﬁc, 1996, vol. 1

work page 1996