Steady-state electron transport in the III-V nitride semiconductors: A sensitivity analysis

Journal of Electronic Materials

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 327-334

  O'Leary, Stephen K ^a   Foutz, Brian E ^b,c   Shur, Michael S ^d   Eastman, Lester F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF REGINA   (Canada)

^b Cornell University   (United States)

^c Dept V32/256 2 ^*  (United States)

^d RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Gallium nitride; III V nitride semiconductors; Monte Carlo simulations; Peak drift velocity; Saturation drift velocity; Steady state electron transport

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTRON TRANSPORT PROPERTIES; GALLIUM NITRIDE; MONTE CARLO METHODS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

SATURATION DRIFT VELOCITY;

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS;

EID: 0038325661     PISSN: 03615235     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11664-003-0153-8     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. S. Strite and H. Morkoç, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 10, 1237 (1992).
2. H. Morkoç, S. Strite, G.B. Gao, M.B. Lin, B. Sverdlov, and M. Burns, J. Appl. Phys. 76, 1363 (1994).
3. S.N. Mohammad and H. Morkoç, Prog. Quant. Electron. 20, 361 (1996).
4. S.J. Pearton, J.C. Zolper, R.J. Shul, and F. Ren, J. Appl. Phys. 86, 1 (1999).
5. S. Nakamura, Mater. Res. Soc. Bull. 22, (2) 29 (1997).
6. M.S. Shur and M.A. Khan, Mater. Res. Soc. Bull. 22, (2) 44 (1997).
7. M.A. Littlejohn, J.R. Hauser, and T.H. Glisson, Appl. Phys. Lett. 26, 625 (1975).
8. D.K. Ferry, Phys. Rev. B 12, 2361 (1975).
9. B. Gelmont, K. Kim, and M. Shur, J. Appl. Phys. 74, 1818 (1993).
10. J. Kolník, I.H. Oǧuzman, K.F. Brennan, R. Wang, P.P. Ruden, and Y. Wang, J. Appl. Phys. 78, 1033 (1995).
11. M. Shur, B. Gelmont, and M.A. Khan, J. Electron. Mater. 25, 777 (1996).
12. B.E. Foutz, L.F. Eastman, U.V. Bhapkar, and M.S. Shur, Appl. Phys. Lett. 70, 2849 (1997).
13. U.V. Bhapkar and M.S. Shur, J. Appl. Phys. 82, 1649 (1997).
14. S.K. O'Leary, B.E. Foutz, M.S. Shur, U.V. Bhapkar, and L.F. Eastman, J. Appl. Phys. 83, 826 (1998).
15. S.K. O'Leary, B.E. Foutz, M.S. Shur, U.V. Bhapkar, and L.F. Eastman, Solid State Commun. 105, 621 (1998).
16. J.D. Albrecht, R.P. Wang, P.P. Ruden, M. Farahmand, and K.F. Brennan, J. Appl. Phys. 83, 1446 (1998).
17. N.G. Weimann, L.F. Eastman, D. Doppalapudi, H.M. Ng, and T.D. Moustakas, J. Appl. Phys. 83, 3656 (1998).
18. S.K. O'Leary, B.E. Foutz, M.S. Shur, L.F. Eastman, and U.V. Bhapkar, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 482, 845 (1998).
19. J.D. Albrecht, R.P. Wang, P.P. Ruden, M. Farahmand, and K.F. Brennan, J. Appl. Phys. 83, 4777 (1998).
20. E. Bellotti, B.K. Doshi, K.F. Brennan, J.D. Albrecht, and P.P. Ruden, J. Appl. Phys. 85, 916 (1999).
21. B.E. Foutz, S.K. O'Leary, M.S. Shur, and L.F. Eastman, J. Appl. Phys. 85, 7727 (1999).
22. S. Krishnamurthy, M. van Schilfgaarde, A. Sher, and A.-B. Chen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 1999 (1997).
23. J.D. Albrecht, R. Wang, P.P. Ruden, M. Farahmand, E. Bellotti, and K.F. Brennan, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 482, 815 (1998).
24. B.E. Foutz, S.K. O'Leary, M.S. Shur, and L.F. Eastman, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 572, 445 (1999).
25. 26
26. W. Fawcett, A.D. Boardman, and S. Swain, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 31, 1963 (1970).
27. 28
28. A.D. Bykhovski, V.V. Kaminski, M.S. Shur, Q.C. Chen, and M.A. Khan, Appl. Phys. Lett. 68, 818 (1996).
29. P. Lugli and D.K. Ferry, IEEE Trans. Electron. Dev. 32, 2431 (1985).
30. K. Seeger, Semiconductor Physics, 6th ed. (New York: Springer, 1997).
31. V.W.L. Chin, T.L. Tansley, and T. Osotchan, J. Appl. Phys. 75, 7365 (1994).
32. t denote the respective elastic constants, and ρ represents the density.
33. H.P. Maruska and J.J. Tietjen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 15, 327 (1969).
34. 9
35. 36
36. M.A. Littlejohn, J.R. Hauser, and T.H. Glisson, J. Appl. Phys. 48, 4587 (1977).
37. W.R.L. Lambrecht and B. Segall, in Properties of Group III Nitrides, No. 11 EMIS Datareviews Series, ed. J.H. Edgar (London: Inspec, 1994), p. 141.
38. 13,25,26 The nonparabolicity coefficient, α, corresponding to the upper conduction-band valleys, are set to zero, as they are assumed to be parabolic.
39. 14 and hence, the results are expected to be different.
40. We have nominally assumed that the first upper conduction-band valley is nondegenerate, i.e., g = 1.