Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T22:43:07.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of Implant Isolation Species for GaN Field-Effect Transistor Structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2012

G. Dang
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611, USA
X. A. Cao
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611, USA
F. Ren
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611, USA
S. J. Pearton
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611, USA
J. Han
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque NM 87185, USA
A. G. Baca
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque NM 87185, USA
R. J. Shul
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque NM 87185, USA
R. G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Consultant, Stevenson Ranch CA 91381, USA
Get access

Abstract

Different ions (Ti+, O+, Fe+, Cr+) were implanted at multiple energies into GaN field effect transistor structures (n and p-type). The implantation was found to create deep states with energy levels in the range EC –0.20 to 0.49 eV in n-GaN and at EV +0.44 eV in p-GaN after annealing at 450-650 oC. The sheet resistance of the GaN was at a maximum after annealing at these temperatures, reaching values of ∼4×1012 Ω/⊏ in n-GaN and ∼1010 Ω/⊏ in p-GaN. The mechanism for the implant isolation was damage-related trap formation for all of the ions investigated, and there was no evidence of chemically induced isolation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pearton, S.J., Mat. Sci. Rep. 4, 313 (1990).Google Scholar
2. Binari, S.C., Dietrich, H.B., Kelner, G., Rowland, L.B., Doverspike, K. and Wickenden, K.D., J. Appl. Phys. 78, 3008 (1995).Google Scholar
3. Pearton, S.J., Abernathy, C.R., Vartuli, C.B., Zolper, J.C., Yuan, C. and Stall, R.A., Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 1435 (1995).Google Scholar
4. Harrington, G., Hsin, Y., Liu, Q.Z., Asbeck, P.M., Lau, S.S., Khan, M.A., Yang, J.W. and Chen, Q., Electron. Lett. 34, 193 (1998).Google Scholar
5. Zolper, J.C., Pearton, S.J., Abernathy, C.R. and Vartuli, C.B., Appl. Phys. Lett. 66, 3042 (1995).Google Scholar
6. Pearton, S.J., Iannuzzi, M.P., Reynolds, C.L. and Peticolas, L., Appl. Phys. Lett. 52, 395 (1988).Google Scholar
7. Zolper, J.C., Sherwin, M.E., Baca, A.G. and Schneider, R.P., J. Electron. Mater. 24, 21 (1995).Google Scholar
8. Zolper, J. C., J. Cryst. Growth 178, 175 (1997).Google Scholar
9. Mott, N.F., J. Non-Cryst. Solids 1, 1 (1968).Google Scholar
10. Cohen, M., Fritsche, H. and Ovshinsky, S., Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 1065 (1969).Google Scholar
11. see for example, Identification of Defects in Semiconductors, ed. Stavola, M., Semiconductors and Semimetals, Vols. 51A and 51B (Academic Press, San Diego, 1998).Google Scholar