4.6 Article

Nanohardness Measurements of CdSiP2 and ZnGeP2 Chalcopyrite-Type Nonlinear Optical Crystals

Journal

CRYSTALS
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cryst13081164

Keywords

nanoindentation; hardness; chalcopyrites; CdSiP2; ZnGeP2; GaP; nonlinear crystals

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated the nanohardness and Young's modulus of randomly oriented CdSiP2 (CSP) and ZnGeP2 (ZGP) single crystals grown by the horizontal Bridgman method. Nanoindentation using a Berkovich tip was employed in the continuous stiffness mode to determine the nanohardness values of CSP (9.9 +/- 0.2 GPa) and ZGP (11.5 +/- 0.1 GPa), as well as the Young's modulus values of CSP (136 +/- 2 GPa) and ZGP (150 +/- 2 GPa). The trends observed in hardness with bandgap and melting point for CSP and ZGP did not match previous measurements, but the results for ZGP showed good agreement with its binary isoelectronic analog, 2GaP.
We study the nanohardness and Young's modulus of randomly oriented CdSiP2 (CSP) and ZnGeP2 (ZGP) single crystals, grown via the horizontal Bridgman method. CSP and ZGP are the only two pnictide chalcopyrites widely used as nonlinear optical crystals in the mid-IR part of the spectrum. Nanoindentation is employed in the continuous stiffness mode (45 Hz, 2 nm) using a Berkovich tip. Nanohardness values of 9.9 +/- 0.2 GPa (Knoop hardness of 905 kg/mm(2)) for CSP and 11.5 +/- 0.1 GPa (993 kg/mm(2)) for ZGP are derived. For Young's modulus, we obtain 136 +/- 2 GPa (CSP) and 150 +/- 2 GPa (ZGP). The trend of increasing hardness with bandgap and melting point of the isostructural CSP and ZGP, as deduced from previous measurements, is not confirmed. The results for ZGP are compared to 2GaP, its binary isoelectronic analog, and the values obtained, 11.0 +/- 0.3 GPa for the nanohardness and 154 +/- 2 GPa for Young's modulus, indicate good matching within the accuracy limits.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available