Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
By means of X-ray topographic methods it has been previously demonstrated [B. Capelle, C. Malgrange, J. Appl. Phys. 53 (1982) 6762] that the crystalline lattice was distorted in antiphase domain boundaries (APB) of GDMO crystals. The distortion gives a resultant translation vector between two adjacent antiphase domains whose component along b is negligible compared to the a component (≃ a/30). Barkley and Jeitschko [J. Appl. Phys. 44 (1973) 938] have shown that, in the same material, antiphase domain boundaries created behind moving ferroelectric domain walls have a common orientation which varies with the temperature at which they are created. The orientation of the APB's is shown here to result from a competition between the energy related to the order parameter and the elastic energy. In order to take into account the elastic energy, a simplified model of the antiphase domain boundary is proposed. The other part of the energy is considered by means of Fousek's and Fouskova's treatment [Phys. Status Solidi (a) 32 (1975) 213]. The adjustment between experimental results and theoretical parameters allows to determine the thickness of the APB (about 100 Å at room temperature) and the value of the « stiffness » coefficient entering in the free energy of the APB.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Capelle et al. (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: