Comparison of Inversion Layer Electron Transport of Lightly Doped 4H and 6H SiC MOSFETs

Abstract:

nversion layers of 4H and 6H Silicon carbide based MOS devices are characterized by Gated Hall measurements to determine the trap density close to the conduction band edge and the main scattering mechanisms that limit the mobility. MOS gated Hall structures were fabricated on 4H SiC polytype with p-type doping of 5X1015cm-3 and 2X1017cm-3. MOS Gated Hall structures were also fabricated on 6H SiC polytype with p-type doping of 7.5X1015cm-3. The gate oxide was grown thermally with N2O as a precursor followed by a NO post oxidation anneal. The inversion layer Hall mobility on the 6H SiC MOSFET sample decreased with increasing temperature from room temperature to 423K, while on the 4H SiC MOSFET samples the inversion layer mobility increased slowly. Approximately 50% of the total charge density at the interface of both 6H and 4H SiC MOSFETs was found to be trapped charge. The dominant scattering mechanism in 6H SiC MOSFETs was inferred to be phonon scattering based on the temperature dependence and theoretical estimates of the phonon limited mobility. In the case of 4H SiC, we infer that at surface roughness scattering is the dominant scattering mechanisms at high surface fields.

• Periodical: Materials Science Forum (Volumes 645-648)
• Pages: 1005-1008
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.645-648.1005
• Online since: April 2010
• Authors: Vinayak Tilak, Kevin Matocha, Greg Dunne
• Keywords: Hall Effect, Interface Trap, MOS Capacitor

References

[1] H. Yano, F. Katafuchi, T. Kimoto, and H. Matsunami IEEE Trans. Electron. Dev., 46, 3, 504510, (1999).

[2] G. Y. Chung, C. C. Tin, J. R. Williams, K. McDonald, R. K. Chanana, R. A. Weller, S. T. Pantelides, L. C. Feldman, O.W. Holland, M. K. Das, and J. W. Palmour, IEEE Electron Dev. Lett., 22, 176, (2001).

DOI: 10.1109/55.915604

[3] V. Tilak, K. Matocha and G. Dunne, IEEE Trans. Electron. Dev., 54, 2823, (2007).

[4] P. Jamet and S. Dimitrijev, Appl. Phys. Lett., 79, 323, (2001).

[5] S. Potbhare, N. Goldsman, G. Pennington, A. Lelis, J. M. McGarrity, J. Appl. Phys., 100, 044515, (2006).

[6] Y. A. Zheng, M. H. White and M. K. Das, Solid State Electron., 49, 1017, (2005).

[7] S. K. Powell, N. Goldsman, J. M. McGarrity, J. Bernstein, C. J. Scozzie, and A. Lelis, J. Appl. Phys., 92, 7, 4053-4061, Oct. 2002. Figure 3(a) The measured inversion charge density and the ideal inversion charge density as a function of gate voltage for sample 1 (4H polytype, doping 5X1015 cm -3 ) and sample 2 (4H polytype, doping 2X1017 cm -3 ). Figure 3(b) The measured inversion charge density and the ideal inversion charge density as a function of gate voltage for sample 3 (6H polytype, doping 7. 5X1015cm -3. The trapped charge density in both cases is the difference between measured inversion charge density and ideal inversion charge density.

DOI: 10.1109/edl.1985.26195