Electrical Performance of 4H-SiC MOSFETs with Different Gate Oxide Processes

Article Preview

Abstract:

This work investigates the impact of different gate oxide fabrication schemes on the electrical characteristics of 4H-SiC planar MOSFETs. Three processes were implemented: (1) 50 nm thermal oxidation with NO annealing at 1350°C, (2) 50 nm ALD-grown oxide with NO annealing at 1250°C, and (3) a stacked 20 nm thermal/30 nm ALD oxide structure with NO annealing at 1250°C. Electrical characterization included IdVg, CV, and IgEox measurements. Results show that Condition 1 exhibits the lowest leakage and best uniformity, and demonstrates strong oxide integrity without soft breakdown events. In contrast, Condition 2 and 3 show increased leakage, higher variability, and evidence of soft breakdown, suggesting greater interfacial weakness. However, a surprising trend was observed in the CV analysis: Condition 2’s flat band voltage (VFB​) is closest to the ideal 0V, indicating a lower fixed charge density than Condition 1 [1], which has the most negative VFB​ (≈ -2V). The hysteresis results further highlight differences, with Condition 3 showing the largest hysteresis window (ΔVth​=0.13V). These findings suggest that while the ALD process coupled with a lower-temperature NO anneal (Condition 2) can effectively reduce fixed charges, it does not fully eliminate interfacial defects responsible for increased leakage and soft breakdown. Our results underscore the complex trade-offs in different fabrication schemes, emphasizing that careful interface engineering beyond conventional NO annealing is required to ensure reliable performance in SiC MOSFETs.

You have full access to the following eBook

Info:

* - Corresponding Author

[1] C. Kim, et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 082104 (2012).

Google Scholar

[2] M. Östling, R. Ghandi, and C.-M. Zetterling, in Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices and ICs (ISPSD) (IEEE, 2011), p.10–17.

DOI: 10.1109/ispsd.2011.5890778

Google Scholar

[3] P. Jamet, S. Dimitrijev, and P. Tanner, J. Appl. Phys. 90, 5058 (2001).

Google Scholar

[4] S. Li, J. Luo, and T. Ye, ECS J. Solid State Sci. Technol. 12, 053006 (2023).

Google Scholar

[5] S.K. Sinha and S. Chaudhury, IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol. 12, 958 (2013).

Google Scholar

[6] A.B. Renz, et al., Mater. Sci. Semicond. Process. 122, 105527 (2021).

Google Scholar

[7] P. Deák, et al., J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 40, 6242 (2007).

Google Scholar