Silicon carbide metal-semiconductor field-effect transistor with and without a low-doped buffer: Influence of substrate traps

Journal of Applied Physics

Volumn 100, Issue 1, 2006, Pages

  Los, Andrei V ^a  

^a FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEEP LEVEL TRANSIENT SPECTROSCOPY; DOPING (ADDITIVES); ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; SILICON CARBIDE; SUBSTRATES;

METAL-SEMICONDUCTOR FIELD-EFFECT TRANSISTORS (MESFETS); SEMI-INSULATING SUBSTRATES; TRAP SIGNATURES;

FIELD EFFECT SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES;

EID: 33746281691     PISSN: 00218979     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.2212069     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. C. E. Weitzel, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 16, 451 (1995).
2. S. T. Allen, R. A. Sadler, T. S. Alcorn, J. Sumakeris, R. C. Glass, C. H. Carter, Jr., and J. W. Palmour, Mater. Sci. Forum 264-268, 953 (1998).
3. M. E. Zvanut, V. V. Konovalov, H. Wang, W. C. Mitchel, W. D. Mitchell, and G. Landis, J. Appl. Phys. 96, 5484 (2004).
4. J. Eriksson, N. Rorsman, H. Zirath, A. Henry, B. Magnusson, A. Ellison, and E. Janzén, Mater. Sci. Forum 433-436, 737 (2003).
5. O. Noblanc, C. Arnodo, C. Dua, E. Chartier, and C. Brylinski, Mater. Sci. Forum 338-342, 1247 (2000).
6. N. Sghaier, J. M. Bluet, A. Souifi, G. Guillot, E. Morvan, and C. Brylinski, Mater. Sci. Forum 389-393, 1363 (2002).
7. S.-H. Lo and C.-P. Lee, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 39, 242 (1992).
8. I. Son and T.-W. Tang, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 36, 632 (1989).
9. S. Mitra, M. V. Rao, and K. A. Jones, Solid-State Electron. 4, 143 (2004).
10. K. P. Hilton, M. J. Uren, D. G. Hayes, P. J. Wilding, H. K. Johnson, J. J. Guest, and B. H. Smith, Mater. Sci. Forum 338-342, 1251 (2000).
11. A. V. Los, M. S. Mazzola, D. Kajfez, B. T. McDaniel, C. E. Smith, J. Kretchmer, L. B. Rowland, and J. B. Casady, Mater. Sci. Forum 457-460, 1193 (2004).
12. A. V. Los and M. S. Mazzola, J. Appl. Phys. 89, 3999 (2001).
13. J. L. Hartke, J. Appl. Phys. 39, 4871 (1968).
14. A. A. Lebedev, Semiconductors 33, 107 (1999).
15. It is interesting to note that Arrhenius plots corresponding to DLTS measurements are shifted compared to the plots corresponding to admittance spectroscopy measurements, meaning that the effective impurity ionization time constant is different in these two cases. Indeed, these two measurement techniques employ different impurity excitations; DLTS is a nonlinear nonequilibrium technique, while under admittance spectroscopy excitation the junction is in a quasiequilibrium state. The effective impurity time constants, which are an average of the corresponding local impurity time constants over the junction space charge region, are different in these two cases.