Size, strain, and band offset engineering in GaAs(Sb)(N)-capped InAs quantum dots for 1.3 - 1.55 µm LEDs and LDs

The optical and structural properties of InAs/GaAs quantum dots (QD) are strongly modified through the use of a thin (~ 5 nm) GaAsSb(N) capping layer. In the case of GaAsSb-capped QDs, cross-sectional scanning tunnelling microscopy measurements show that the QD height can be controllably tuned through the Sb content up to ~ 14 % Sb. The increased QD height (together with the reduced strain) gives rise to a strong red shift and a large enhancement of the photoluminescence (PL) characteristics. This is due to improved carrier confinement and reduced sensitivity of the excitonic bandgap to QD size fluctuations within the ensemble. Moreover, the PL degradation with temperature is strongly reduced in the presence of Sb. Despite this, emission in the 1.5 !lm region with these structures is only achieved for high Sb contents and a type-II band alignment that degrades the PL. Adding small amounts of N to the GaAsSb capping layer allows to progressively reduce the QD-barrier conduction band offset. This different strategy to red shift the PL allows reaching 1.5 !lm with moderate Sb contents, keeping therefore a type-I alignment. Nevertheless, the PL emission is progressively degraded when the N content in the capping layer is increased

Propagation of Cross-Section Uncertainties in Criticality Calculations in the Framework of UAM-Phase I Using MCNPX-2.7e and SCALE-6.1

In the framework of the OECD/NEA project on Benchmark for Uncertainty Analysis in Modeling (UAM) for Design, Operation, and Safety Analysis of LWRs, several approaches and codes are being used to deal with the exercises proposed in Phase I, “Specifications and Support Data for Neutronics Cases.” At UPM, our research group treats these exercises with sensitivity calculations and the “sandwich formula” to propagate cross-section uncertainties. Two different codes are employed to calculate the sensitivity coefficients of to cross sections in criticality calculations: MCNPX-2.7e and SCALE-6.1. The former uses the Differential Operator Technique and the latter uses the Adjoint-Weighted Technique. In this paper, the main results for exercise I-2 “Lattice Physics” are presented for the criticality calculations of PWR. These criticality calculations are done for a TMI fuel assembly at four different states: HZP-Unrodded, HZP-Rodded, HFP-Unrodded, and HFP-Rodded. The results of the two different codes above are presented and compared. The comparison proves a good agreement between SCALE-6.1 and MCNPX-2.7e in uncertainty that comes from the sensitivity coefficients calculated by both codes. Differences are found when the sensitivity profiles are analysed, but they do not lead to differences in the uncertainty.