Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Parasitic substrate effects in gallium arsenide monolithic MESFETs Shulman, David Dima 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_fall_shulman_david_dima.pdf [ 2.27MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0064824.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0064824-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0064824-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0064824-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0064824-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0064824-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0064824-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0064824-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0064824.ris

Full Text

PARASITIC SUBSTRATE EFFECTS INGALLIUM ARSENIDE MONOLITHIC MESFETSDAVID DIMA SHULMANB.Sc., Technion — Israel Institute of Technology, 1983M.Sc., Technion — Israel Institute of Technology, 1986A THESIS SUBM1ITbD IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THEREQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(The Department of Electrical Engineering)We accept this thesis as confonningto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJune 1992©David Dima ShulmanSignature(s) removed to protect privacyIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)__________________________________Department of E€L1ThC 5IterrThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate .DE-6 (2/88)Signature(s) removed to protect privacySignature(s) removed to protect privacyAbstractThe present large scale GaAs integrated circuit industry is based on the fabrication of metal-semiconductor field-effect-transistors (MESFETs) on semi-insulating GaAs substrates which providethe device isolation. High-resistivity in semi-insulating GaAs is achieved by the delicate balancebetween shallow donors and acceptors, and deep levels. The semi-insulating substrates, however, donot provide perfect isolation and do allow crosstalk between neighboring MESFETs. One source ofthe crosstalk is sidegating, usually defined as the change in drain current of one MESFET as a resultof applying a negative potential to a nearby contact of another MESFET. In addition, the interactionof each MESFET with the semi-insulating substrate is strong enough to affect the electrical propertiesof the device, the most important being the change of the output conductance with frequency. Thiswork is concerned with the above two parasitic effects with the main focus on sidegating, which isthe major obstacle for developing large scale GaAs integrated circuits.Electron injection into the vicinity of a MESFET from a nearby contact via a semi-insulatingsubstrate is known to produce the sidegating effect. This process is known as single injection, becausethe injection is due to a single carrier type. In this work we present a novel study of sidegating inthe frequency domain (AC sidegating) and a new mechanism of DC sidegating in which holes areinjected into a semi-insulating substrate from the gate of a MESFET and electrons are injected intoa semi-insulating substrate from a nearby contact. This process is known as double injection.We distinguish between high- and low-level double injection where the low-level injection isreferred to a condition in which the excess carrier concentration is much smaller than the majoritycarrier concentration in semi-insulating GaAs, while the low-level injection is referred to a conditionin which the concentration of injected excess carriers exceeds the majority carrier concentration insemi-insulating GaAs.High-level double injection results in a drastic variation of a MESFET drain current at voltageslower that those predicted by the single-carrier injection model. It also results in hysteresis in current11voltage characteristics as observed in experiments.It is shown that sidegating may occur under conditions of low-level double injection, becauseof the resultant excess trapped charge distribution which produces non-linear potential profiles acrossthe semi-insulating substrate. The contribution of hole injection and recombination processes to thenon-linear potential profile is discussed.We found that AC sidegating at least up to and including the kHz range is related to DC sidegating,in a way that upon increasing a negative sidegate voltage the AC drain current is decreasing. Uponapplying small negative or positive sidegate voltages, thus preserving the conditions of low-levelinjection, this work predicts a strong sidegating effect in the kHz-MHz range due to the decreaseby a few orders of magnitude of the resistance of semi-insulating substrates. This is because semi-insulating GaAs transfonns in this frequency range from what is called a “lifetime semiconductor”,in which quasi-neutrality of free carriers is preserved, to a “relaxation semiconductor”, in whichseparation of electrons and holes in space exists through zero local recombination. The presenttreatment predicts that this form of AC sidegating will be only weakly sensitive to hole injection,and will increase and start at lower frequencies on decreasing the distance between the MESFETs.The peculiar electrical properties of the semi-insulating GaAs in the frequency-domain are used toexplain the frequency dependence of the output conductance of GaAs MESFETs on semi-insulatingsubstrates. One result of the model developed in this thesis for the output admittance of GaAsMESFETs is that while the magnitude of the admittance can change by a factor of two or three, thevariation of its phase is negligible.The results of this work indicate that device performance is strongly influenced by the propertiesof the semi-insulating substrate. One result is that device characteristics are not determined solely bythe most dominant trap in the undoped SI substrate EL2, but also by recombination centers (whichare not EL2) and shallower traps.111Table of ContentsAbstract.List of FiguresGlossaryAcknowledgementsIntroduction2 AC Sidegating2.1 Introduction2.2 AC Sidegating in GaAs n-i-n structures.2.2.1 Experimental Procedure2.2.2 Results2.2.3 Discussion2.3 AC Sidegating in GaAs MESFETs2.3.1 Modeling2.3.2 Detemiination of model parameters2.3.3 Comparison with experimental results2.3.4 Discussion2.4 Summary3 The3.13.25562.67817172223243032323232333643485858596270717171768384GaAs MESFETs 8585858993IIviXiXIIrole of minority carriers in the sidegating effectIntroductionSidegating effect under conditions of low-level injection3.2.1 Introduction3.2.2 Sidegating model3.2.3 Detailed analysis3.2.4 Discussion3.3 Evaluation of hole injection3.4 High-level double carrier injection in the sidegating effect3.4.1 Introduction and Model3.4.2 Experiments3.4.3 Analysis and Discussion3.5 Summary4 Low-frequency transport in semi-insulating GaAs4.1 Introduction4.2 Analysis and results4.3 Discussion4.4 Applications to AC sidegating4.5 Summary5 Modeling frequency dependence of the output conductance of5.1 Introduction5.2 Modeling5.3 Comparison with experimental and numerical data5.4 Summaryiv6 Conclusions 95References 99A Potential distribution in the uniform channel 106B Potential distribution in the exponentially tapered channel 107VList of Figures1.1 Sources of parasitic effects in GaAs MESFETs on a SI substrate. Lines 1—4visualize interaction mechanisms between two MESFETs on a SI substrate,which can be sources of sidegating: 1—2 interaction between the source/drain tothe sidegate, 3 interaction between the sideate to the gate on a doped channel, 4interaction between the sidegate to the portion of the gate on a SI substrate (thedashed line shows the edge of the active channel area): Line 5 showsdrain-to-source leakage current, which contributes to the increase of an outputconductance of a MESFET 32.2 Signal attenuation at low frequencies for the 20gm long structure (for sidegatevoltage VSG = —6V) measured using the low-frequency measurement setup 72.3 Signal attenuation vs. negative sidegate voltage at lkHz(pluses),lOkHz(x-marks), and lOOkHz(circles) measured using the low-frequencymeasurement setup for 3m long structure 82.4 Signal attenuation vs. negative sidegate voltage at lkHz(pluses),lOkHz(x-marks), and lOOkHz(circles) measured using the low-frequencymeasurement setup for i4m long structure 92.5 Signal attenuation at radio frequencies for the 201im long structure (for sidegatevoltage = —6V) measured using the high-frequency measurement setup. . . 102.6 Signal attenuation at radio frequencies for the 450[tm long structure (for sidegatevoltage = —6V) measured using the high-frequency measurement setup. . . 112.7 Physical system corresponding to the differential equation 2.4 which is used forinvestigating frequency-dependent transients in SI GaAs. At t=0 the switch isclosed and the DC biasing voltage V0 and the sinusoidal input V(t) are appliedto a bar of SI GaAs, which is initially biased at V 132.8 Schematic AC current-voltage characteristics for space-charge-limitedconduction in SI GaAs at two frequencies f2 > f1. The current will be confinedin the triangle bounded by the lines formed by the DC traps-filled-limit voltage,the trap-free square law and the ohmic conduction 152.9 Schematic space charge distribution in a GaAs MESFET operating in thesaturation region with a negative gate bias 182.10 Distributed network for a GaAs MESFET in the saturation region 202.11 Experimental (dashed line) and calculated (solid line) dependences of ACsidegating on the gate bias for a depletion-mode GaAs MESFET operating atVDD = O.5V, —3V, 100kHz. Parameters: cb = 15.4fF, Tb =1.1GI1, r5 = 0.06Gl, c = 15ff. Zero bias gate capacitance is 90ff 242.12 Experimental (dashed line) and calculated (solid line) dependencesof AC sidegatin on the gate bias for a enhancement-mode GaAsMESFET operating at VDD = 0.5V, VSG = —1V, 100kHz. Parameters:cb = 17ff, rb= 2.8GfZ, r5= 0.15G, c 15ff. Zero bias gate capacitance is10ff 252.13 Experimental (dashed line) and calculated (solid line) dependences ofAC sidegating on the gate bias for a depletion-mode GaAsMESFET at VDD = 3V, VSG —1V, 100kHz. Parameters:Cb = 17ff, Tb = 2.8Cfl, r5 = 0.l5G, C 15fF 26vi2.14 Experimental (dashed line) and calculated (solid line) dependences of ACsidegating on the drain-to-source voltage for a depletion-mode GaAs MESFEToperating at VG = OV, VSG = —2V, 100kHz. Parameters: cb = 16.3ff, r =3.2Gf, r3 = 0.17G, c = 15ff, rh3 2101, c33 84ff 272.15 Experimental (dashed line) and calculated (solid line) dependencesof AC sidegatin on the sidegate bias for a depletion-mode GaAsMESFET operating at VG = OV, VDD = 0.5V, 10kHz. Parameters:Vchs = 175Q, C33 = 90ff, C3 = 15ff 282.16 Experimental (dashed line) and calculated (solid line) frequencydependence of sidegating for depletion-mode GaAs MESFEToperating at VG = OV, VDD = 0.5V, VSG = —1V. Parameters:Tchs = 175f1, C33 = 90ff, Cb = 17ff, Tb 2.8011, Ts = 0.15011, C = 15ff. . . . 293.17 Typical drain and gate currents as a function of sidegate voltage(VD = 2 V, VG = 0 V). The measurements were performed in the dark ondepletion-mode MESFETs fabricated by ion implantation into a SI substrate. Thetypical threshold voltage was —0.6 V. The gate length was l[tm and width 4im.The gate-source and gate-drain distances were 2im. The ohmic contact of theadjacent MESFET, which served as a sidegate in our measurements, was placedparallel to the source at a distance of 8im and was 23tm from the gate 343.18 Hole injection from Schottky gate. (a) For a small sidegate voltage. (b) For alarge sidegate voltage 353.19 Schematic band diagram of the gate-sidegate structure in equilibrium 373.20 Concentration profile of trapped and free excess carriers in the 20gm longmodel structure. The solid line corresponds to trapped carriers, dashed line toelectrons, and dashdots to holes. The carrier densities are normalized to theequilibrium electron concentration The sidegate voltage is —5V, theequilibrium electron concentration is 7 x 106 crn3, the equilibrium holeconcentration is 2 x i05 Cm3, the electron mobility is 4 x i03crn2/Vsec,the hole mobility is 400 Cm2/Vsec, and the lifetime is 1 nsec. EL2 is assumedto be 0.75eV from the conduction band, its density 1016 cm3, and the ratio ofits capture cross sections for holes and electrons i0. The recombinationcenter is assumed to be 0.65eV from the conduction band, with density10i5 Cm3, and the ratio of its capture cross sections 100 403.21 Concentration profile of trapped excess carriers as in Fig. 3.20, but only in thevicinity of hole injecting edge (x=0). The charge profile changes polarity ataround0.4gm 413.22 Electric field profile in the investigated structure with the same parameters as inFig. 3.20, but for different densities of recombination centers: dots correspondto 1016 cm3,dashed line to 1015 cm3, and solid line to i014 m3 423.23 Potential profile corresponding to the conditions described in Fig. 3.22 433.24 Electric field profile in the investigated structure with the same parameters as inFig. 3.20, but for different values of the minority carrier injection (n): dotscorrespond to i,=l, dashed line to 0.5, and solid line to 0 443.25 Potential profile corresponding to the conditions described in Fig. 3.24 453.26 Schematic superimposition of the potential profile across the investigatedstructure in the presence of a sidegate voltage Vo (dashed line), and for zeroapplied voltage (solid line). W1 designates the width of the substrate-channeldepletion layer 46vii3.27 Drain (solid line), gate (circles), and sidegate (asterisks) currents vs. sidegatevoltage (VD = 2V, VG = OV). The gate current changes its polarity at about—3V. The gate and sidegate currents coincide at the voltages more negativethan-8V 513.28 Channel punch-through in low pinch-off GaAs MESFETs(VD = 2V, VG: OV to — O.2V): (a) gate current increases rapidly when aMESFET is nearly pinched off as a result of applying a negative sidegatevoltage. (b) the corresponding sidegate current 523.29 Hole injection and a corresponding energy-band diagram for a (a) quasi-neutralMESFET, (b) MESFET with a large negative sidegate voltage applied. Thecombination of the inversion layer, n-channel and semi-insulating substratecreates a P-N-P looks like structure 543.30 (a) Cross section of the investigated three-terminal structure consisting of twoMESFETs. Using a Schottky (gate) and an ohmic contact (source/dram) of oneMESFET together with an ohmic contact of the other MESFET, the structureacts as a surface-barrier transistor with a gate operating as an emitter. (b) Anequivalent bipolar transistor structure with a long collector region 553.31 Measured currents vs. collector voltage characteristics. The solid linecorresponds to the emitter (gate) current ‘E and the dashed line to the collector(sidegate) current 1c. The leakage current IL (designated by dots) is thecurrent between base and collector when the emitter is floating 563.32 Calculated hole injection ratio, defined as (I— IL)/iE for the emitter-basebias of 0.1 V (solid line) and 0.2 V (dashed line). ‘E”C and ‘L are defined incaption of Fig. 3.31 573.33 Schematic layout of the mirror-image structure of two MESFETs that wereused in the sidegating measurements. The channel width, gate length,gate-source and gate-drain spacings were 4 pm, 1 pm, 2 pm and 2 pmrespectively. The dotted area is the active layer area of the MESFETs. Whenone of the MESFETs was biased, the other’s ohmic contact served as asidegate. The sidegate was 8 pm from the source and 23 pm from the gate. . . . 603.34 Drain, gate and sidegate currents as a function of sidegate voltage(VD=2V,VG=OV) 613.35 Drain current versus sidegate voltage for a MESFET with a floating gate(VD: 1—5V) 623.36 Hysteresis in the drain current (VD = 2V, VG = OV), and in the gate-sidegatecurrent (source and drain are floating). The solid line represents a decreasing(more negative) sidegate voltage, while the dotted line represents the oppositedirection 633.37 Schematic energy-band diagram of a MESFET gate on a SI substrate 653.38 Hysteresis in the gate-sidegate structures under increasing illumination(VSG = OV, drain and source are floating). The solid line corresponds to the dataobtained in the dark, dashed line corresponds to the data obtained with roomlights, and the open circles correspond to the data obtained under microscopelamp illumination. Results obtained in the dark or with room lights showhysteresis, while those obtained under direct illumination show no hysteresis. . . 683.39 Schematic top view of the area (designated by gray pattern) that is affected byhole injection from the gate on a SI substrate 69viii4.40 Schematic equilibrium band diagram of the semi-insulating structure of a lengthL between zero-field points in the vicinity of N+ and Schottky contacts 724.41 Concentration profile of excess trapped and free carriers in the 50tm longmodel structure at 1Hz with no hole injection (i=O). The solid line correspondsto trapped carriers, dashed line to electrons, and dots to holes. The amplitudeof AC applied voltage is 5OmV, the equilibrium electron concentration is7 x 10b cm3, the equilibrium hole concentration is 2 x i05 cm3, theelectron mobility is 4 x iücm2/Vsec, the hole mobility is 400cm2/Vsec, andthe lifetime is 10 nsec. The deep donor is assumed to be 0.75eV from theconduction band, its density 2 x 1016 cm3, and with the capture cross sectionof 1 x lO3cm2for electrons and 1 x lO6cm2for holes . The deep acceptoris assumed to be 0.65eV from the conduction band, with density5 x 1015 cm3, and with the capture cross section of 1 x lO3cm2for holesand 1 x 10’6cm2for electrons 754.42 Concentration profile of trapped and free excess carriers at 1MHz with no holeinjection. The rest of the parameters are given in Fig. 4.41 764.43 Concentration profile of trapped and free excess carriers at 1Hz in the presenceof hole injection (i=1). The rest of the parameters are given in Fig. 4.41 774.44 Concentration profile of trapped and free excess carriers at 1MHz in the presenceof hole injection (=1). The rest of the parameters are given in Fig. 4.41 784.45 Frequency dependence of the conductance of the SI structure calculated usingeq. (4.64). The dashed line corresponds to the conductance in the presence ofhole injection (ij=l) and the solid line to the conductance when no holeinjection occurs (i=O). The rest of the parameters are given in Fig. 4.41 794.46 Frequency dependence of the capacitance of the SI structure calculated usingeq. (4.64). The dashed line corresponds to the capacitance in the presence ofhole injection (7t1) and the solid line to the capacitance when no holeinjection occurs (i=0). The rest of the parameters are given in Fig. 4.41 805.47 Schematic cross section of a MESFET and an AC potential profile across thedrain-substrate-source region. LF corresponds to the profile at low frequencies,HF at high frequencies 865.48 Small-signal equivalent circuit of a GaAs MESFET at low frequencies 895.49 The impact of the device structure on the frequency dependence of the outputadmittance. The first row shows MESFETs with a p-type buried layer. A deep player reduces the frequency dependence, while a shallow p layer may increase it.The second row shows the effect of the gate location on the frequency-dependentoutput admittance: placing gate closer to the source enhances the frequencydependence, while placing it closer to the source may reduce the effect 915.50 Drain conductance vs. frequency. Results of the present model(solid line) are superimposed on numerical results (dashed line) [7],and experimental data (circles) [20]. Parameters used: T = 300 K,ND = 107cm3, NA = 6 x 105cm3,VDS = 2.5V, VDST = 1.45V, 1sg =1dg = lzrn, 1 = 1.2,um, e x 1O7cm3,p lO5cm , for trap at 0.69eV;N1 = 5 x 106cm3, = 2 x 104cm2 0p1 = 2 x 1O8cm2for trapat 0.5 eV;N2 = 5 x 105cm3,a = 5 x 103cm2,,°2 = 5 x 107cm2. . . . 92ix5.51 Drain conductance vs. frequency at 325 K and 375 K. Results of the presentmodel (solid line) are superimposed on experimental data (circles and asterisks)after Canfield et. al [4]. Parameters used: NEL2 = 5 x 1016cm3,NA =5 x 1O5cm, 1sg = 1dg = = litm, VDS = 3V, VDST = 1.6V 93xGlossaryMESFET — metal-semiconductor field-effect-transistorSI — semi-insulatingVLSI — very-large-scale integrationLSI — large-scale integrationIC — integrated circuitTFL — trap-filled-limitSCL — space-charge-limitedMMIC — monolithic microwave integrated circuitJ — electric current densityI-V — current-voltageDC — direct currentAC — alternate current—minority carrier injection ratioT — carrier lifetimeq — magnitude of the electronic charge— electron mobility—hole mobility— equilibrium electron concentration6n — excess electron density—equilibrium hole concentration—excess hole densityxiAcknowledgementsI would like to thank my supervisor Professor Lawrence Young for his help and support duringthe course of this work.Kerry Lowe from BNR (Ottawa) is thanked for providing the test devices used in this research.This work is dedicated to my parents.xiiChapter 1IntroductionIn present GaAs technology, MESFETs are the only devices which have approached the VLSIlevel of integration. This is due to the simplicity of their fabrication: all we need is two ohmiccontacts (source and drain) and a Schottky contact (gate) on a conductive layer (channel). However,with all its simplicity a MESFET exhibits numerous parasitic effects. This work is concerned withparasitic effects in GaAs MESFET integrated circuits, which hinder high-level integration.The VLSI level of integration requires the fabrication of MESFETs on semi-insulating (SI) substrates, which makes the GaAs technology especially attractive because they reduce the interconnectcapacitances and make device isolation simple. The MBE-grown buffer layers are currently too costlyfor use in the VLSI technology [1]. But the SI GaAs does not act as a mere mechanical supportwith high resistivity, and does allow leakage currents through the SI substrate between neighboringdevices, as well as the leakage current between source and drain of each device. These currentsoriginate effects which affect device performance. Rather than review these effects here, the readeris referred to the recently published text book on GaAs integrated circuits by Long and Burner [2].In addition, there are review articles on the parasitic effects in GaAs integrated circuits by Rocchi[3] and more recently by Koyama et at. [4] and Salmon [5]. Many effects in GaAs MESFETs wereinvestigated using the techniques that had already been developed for Si devices. But it is importantto stress that there is a significant difference in the treatment of substrate effects in GaAs and Sidevices. Probably the most fundamental difference is associated with the relaxation time in Si and SIGaAs substrates. While the relaxation time of a typical Si substrate is in the range of picoseconds, therelaxation time of a SI GaAs substrate is typically in the range of milliseconds-microseconds. Thismeans that the charge injected into the bulk SI GaAs will not disappear as fast as in Si substrates.Consequently, the parasitic substrate effects will occur beyond the conventional silicon transistorbandwidth, but inside the bandwidth of GaAs MESFETs.Additional parasitic effects are associated with a Schottky MESFET gate. It is interesting tonote that Schottky junctions have never been used in the VLSI Si technology, and their most popular1usage found place in the earlier digital LSI technology (TTL). In comparison to p-n junctions manyproperties of Schottky junctions are much less understood. A Schottky gate is, however, an essentialpart of the GaAs MESFET technology, and, therefore, its contribution to the parasitic effects inGaAs MESFETs should be considered.The major parasitic effect in GaAs integrated Circuits is sidegating, the change in drain currentas a result of applying a negative potential to a nearby contact (sidegate). The earlier attempts toexplain this effect suggested electron injection into the device channel-substrate interface as the mainsource of sidegating [6]. This explanation was based on the one-dimensional Lampert’s model ofhigh-level carrier injection into the insulator with traps, according to which the current increasessharply at a certain threshold voltage [7]. Considering high trap densities in SI GaAs and typicaldistances between a MESFET and a sidegate, this model has difficulty in explaining the low voltagesat which sidegating is often observed. To overcome this difficulty conduction through surface stateswas suggested [8, 9]. While some of the reported experimental results regarding sidegating couldbe explained in terms of surface conduction, there are many reports of sidegating in large-geometrydevices and in layout arrangements in which the sidegating should have been greatly reduced if thesurface had played a major role, but instead a strong effect was observed. According to the therecent review paper by Salmon, circuit manufacturers have developed processes, which control thesurface properties, so that, “the surface component of backgating is negligible compared with thebulk backgating” [5].Sidegating is a complicated phenomenon, in which several mechanisms of transferring chargeinto the vicinity of the MESFET channel may occur. In certain structures, and, depending on substrateproperties, one of the mechanisms can prevail, but on the other hand some mechanisms can occursimultaneously. Fig. 1.1 visualizes some of the sources of parasitic effects in GaAs MESFETs ona SI substrate, that are discussed in this work.Although the present work has focused on GaAs MESFETs, many of the results are applicable forother devices that incorporate SI material. MESFETs are used here as a probe of parasitic phenomenaoccurring in SI substrates. Being simpler than other GaAs-based transistors, they provide a tool for2SEMI-INSULATING SUBSTRATEFigure 1.1: Sources of parasitic effects in GaAs MESFETs on a SI substrate. Lines 1—4 visualize interactionmechanisms between two MESFETs on a SI substrate, which can be sources of sidegating: 1—2 interactionbetween the source/drain to the sidegate, 3 interaction between the sidegate to the gate on adoped channel, 4 interaction between the sidegate to the portion of the gate on a SI substrate(the dashed line shows the edge of the active channel area). Line 5 shows drain-to-sourceleakage current, which conthbutes to the increase of an output conductance of a MESFET.understanding of the interaction with the SI GaAs of more complicated devices such as HEMTs [10]and HBTs [11].Although measurements by the author are reported throughout this work, the emphasis is noton the measurement techniques, but on the analysis and modeling of the experimental results. Thereason for this is that many of the results in this work are similar to those reported by other researchlaboratories during the last decade. Since the general behavior of the device is known, the major taskfor researchers is the understanding and interpretation of this behavior. The emphasis was put onan analytical treatment, since it usually provides more insight into device physics than do numericalmethods. The present state of the GaAs MESFET technology still requires understanding of thebasic phenomena occurring in the integrated circuits, and, therefore, in my opinion, such analysisshould precede, or at least be in parallel to, numerical analyses. For example, in order to simplifycomputation many numerical analyses of sidegating do not consider the continuity equation for holes,and thus eliminate from the discussion many effects predicted by the analytical analysis, which takesthe participation of holes into account. An additional reason for analytical modeling is to make resultsuseful for circuit designers by providing closed-form expressions through which a clear relationshipis established between design goals and physical device parameters.2P29DEVICE 1 DEVICE 23In Chapter 2 the experimental investigation and R-C network modeling of AC sidegating arereported. In Chapter 3 the sidegating under conditions of low-level injection into the SI substrateand the role of double injection in the sidegating effect are discussed. In Chapter 4 the extensionof the low-level analysis to the frequency domain is presented. This frequency-domain analysisconfirms and provides a new interpretation for the experimental results shown in Chapter 2. Chapter5 shows how the frequency-domain analysis is applied to modeling of the frequency-dependent outputconductance of GaAs MESFETs. Finally, conclusions are presented in Chapter 6.4Chapter 2AC Sidegating2.1 IntroductionCrosstalk between GaAs MESFETs on SI GaAs substrates can severely affect device isolation andis a major obstacle to the miniaturization of GaAs integrated circuits. An important source of crosstalkis sidegating. Most reports of sidegating have been for DC conditions [12—14]. The results have beensubject to different interpretations [12, 15, 8] . AC measurements and their analysis may provide atool to decide which of various postulated mechanisms is currently occurring. Recently Chen et al.[161 addressed AC sidegating (at 40MHz and 2GHz). They concluded that it must be consideredin designing GaAs monolithic microwave integrated circuits. Thus modeling of sidegating, whichwill predict at least the trends in device behavior, is needed in designing GaAs integrated circuits.The need to extend the investigation of sidegating to the frequency domain is fuliher shown by thefollowing.As with silicon CMOS technology, in which the development of digital circuits was followedby the development of analog circuits, to provide an interface between the digital circuitry and theexternal world, the implementation of complex digital-analog systems on a GaAs single chip maysoon be at issue. An understanding of the interaction between the analog and digital portions ofthe system will then be required. The investigation of this interaction is expected to be particularlytroublesome at low frequencies, at which anomalies in GaAs monolithic MESFETs are observed. Athigh frequencies understanding crosstalk is important because of the tendency to combine microwaveor RF circuits with their digital control circuits, e.g. RF switches with a driver circuit. Sidegatingin GaAs digital integrated circuits has been investigated by applying a pulse train to the sidegate,but only the DC component of the pulse waveform has been considered [16, 17]. The effect, forexample, of the pulse train repetition rate on sidegating has not been examined.52.2 AC Sidegating in GaAs n-i-n structuresMESFET interaction has usually been simulated by applying a negative potential to a sidegatecontact on the semi-insulating GaAs substrate and examining its effect on a nearby device located onthe same substrate, rather than having two MESFETs. According to the TFL model [12] sidegatingis caused by electron injection into the channel-substrate interface of a MESFET and this processoccurs due to the space-charge-limited conduction between the sidegate and the drain. Therefore, thesidegate-SI-drain interaction dominates sidegating, and, consequently, in the present section a simplerstructure (n-SI-n) has been investigated, which avoids the complex electrical field distribution underthe MESFET that otherwise complicates the analysis and the interpretation of the experimental results.2.2.1 Experimental ProcedureThe measurements were performed on planar structures of ohmic contacts on semi-insulatingGaAs substrates. Both the input contact, which represent the sidegate, and the output contact, whichrepresent the drain, were n+ Si implanted directly into SI substrate. The two electrodes were separatedby distances of 3 zm to 450 m of semi-insulating material.For measurement between 100Hz and 100kHz, the input of the sample was connected to asignal generator, while the output was connected to a Princeton Applied Research(PAR) 5204 lock-inanalyzer via a PAR 113 low-noise amplifier, which was used in order to bring the signal to the leveldetectable by the lock-in analyzer.A different experimental arrangement was used for measuring the sidegating between 500kHzand 500MHz: the sidegate was connected through a high frequency probe to the HP 8656 signalgenerator, while the output was connected through another high frequency probe to a HP 8558spectrum analyzer.Note that amplification of the signal in these two experimental set-ups is different. In the low-frequency set-up the voltage gain of the low-noise amplifier is set to 2 x 1O and its input is shunted bya 150 !l resistor. The output resistance of the amplifier is 600 Q and it is connected to the PAR lock-inanalyzer with an input impedance equivalent to a 1 MIl resistor in parallel with a 30 pF capacitor.In the high-frequency set-up the output is connected to a 50 l input of the spectrum analyzer.6zCzFigure 2.2: Signal attenuation at low frequencies for the 2Opm long structure (forsidegate voltage VSG = —6V) measured using the low-frequency measurement setup.2.2.2 ResultsThe measured signal attenuation through the semi-insulating substrate is piotted as a function offrequency for the range 100Hz - 100kHz in Fig. 2.2. The linear fit exhibits 20dB per decade changeof the output signal level with frequency. The signal attenuation at low frequencies for structureswith distances of 3m and 14itm between the contacts is plotted as function of a sidegate voltagein Figs. 2.3 and 2.4. The 3 m long structure shows stronger sidegate voltage dependence than the10 im long structure at the same range of applied voltages. This effect becomes more pronouncedfor lower frequencies.The measured RF signal attenuation is plotted ys. frequency for the range of 500kHz - 500MHzin Fig. 2.5. The output signal level increased 20dB per decade with frequency. Another setFREQUENCY (Hz)7z0zzCDFigure 2.3: Signal attenuation vs. negative sidegate voltage at lkHz(pluses), lOkHz(x-marks), andlOOkHz(circles) measured using the low-frequency measurement setup for 31tm long structure.of measurements (Fig. 2.6) at radio frequencies was performed on the structure with two contactsseparated by 450 tm.2.2.3 DiscussionSeveral mechanisms contribute to the crosstalk phenomena. For a given arrangement of conductors if the spacing is small, the electric and magnetic fields of the conductors will overlap sufficiently,so that a wave propagating in one of them will induce a wave in the others. Thus part of the ACsidegating is caused by the coupling between two metal pads through an air and a dielectric material[18, 19]. Capacitive coupling is of course directly proportional to the frequency and will increase20dB per decade with it (see Figs 2.2 and 2.5).-90-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0SIDEGATE BIAS (V)8-45-50-zo 60-65-70zctc1 -75-80-85-5SIDEGATE BIAS CV)Figure 2.4: Signal attenuation vs. negative sidegate voltage at lkHz(pluses), lOkHz(x-marks), andlOOkHz(circles) measured using the low-frequency measurement setup for l4pm long structure.Another mechanism contributing to. the sidegating involves the conduction current through theinsulating substrate with traps. At low voltages an ohmic current will be observed. With increasingapplied voltage the injected carriers fill up the traps in the substrate arid as the voltage reaches acertain threshold (trap-filled-limit voltage), at which all the traps are full, a steep rise in the currentwill occur [201. According to Lee et al. [12] a trap-filled space-charge-limited current is observed insemi-insulating GaAs samples. The more detailed models of this phenomenon proposed by Léhovecet al. [21] and Horio et at. [22] suggest that the space-charge-limited current through the semiinsulating GaAs increases abruptly when the sidegate voltage exceeds a certain threshold and causesthe substrate resistance to be reduced over a certain range of voltages. Avalanche breakdown [8]can also produce a threshold effect.-4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -19-40-50-60-70-80ci,-90-100-10 l0Figure 2.5: Signal attenuation at radio frequencies for the 20,um Long structure (forsidegate voltage VSG = —6V) measured using the high-frequency measurement setup.However, the models proposed to explain the sidegating in semi-insulating GaAs concentrateon the investigation of DC current-voltage characteristics only. Semi-insulating GaAs is known tocontain both electron and hole traps [23]. The dependence of the space-charge-limited conductionupon frequency is expected to be influenced by the effects of trapping [24, 25]. The frequencydependence arises from the finite time constant associated with the charging and discharging of thetraps in semi-insulating GaAs. We will consider only one electron trap, commonly referred to asEL2, which is the most important trap in determining the properties of semi-insulating GaAs [261.The trap filling can be analyzed using the Shockley-Read-Hall model for recombination through asingle level, which, of course, neglects hot electron and field enhanced detrapping effects, whichconceivably may be important in the present situation. The rate equation of the full traps on a single+++++106 l0 108FREQUENCY (Hz)10—55 I I I I I I I I liii-60, -65-70--80-85-90-95I I I I I I I106 10 108 10FREQUENCY (Hz)Figure 2.6: Signal attenuation at radio frequencies for the 450im long structure (forsidegate voltage VSG = —6V) measured using the high-frequency measurement setup.level is given by [27]:NT = NT[(cn + e)(1—f) — (Cpp + en)fj; (2.1)where NT = density of traps, f = fraction of traps occupied by electrons, n, p = electron and holedensities, e, e = emission rates for electrons and holes, c, c7, = capture probabilities for electronand holesThis equation can be simplified when the concentration of one carrier largely exceeds theconcentration of the other. This is true for the single carrier high injection into the substrate.Furthermore, for EL2 the emission rates for electrons are much greater than that of the holes [28].Next, we express the electron concentration around its steady state value: n(t) = no + n(t). Under11these conditions the trap filling equation reduces to:• dflT—= —(n + n1)cnT + flCNTdt (2.2)= —[no + In(t) + nh]CnflT + [n0 + In(t)]cNT;where T = NTf, n1 = electron density if the Fermi level were at the trap energy level.For small variations in electron concentration around its steady state value [no>> zn(t)j thetime constant associated with the traps is given by [291:= 1/c(no + n1). (2.3)Since the steady state electron concentration can be much greater than its equilibrium value thetime constant associated with the small variations in electron density also can be much larger thanthe emission time constant in equilibrium. Under these conditions the time constant does not varywith time. However, it is important to stress that the electron density and consequently the timeconstant vary across the region between two electrodes. If the electron concentration is 1 x 1013,using the equilibrium EL2 emission time constant given by [28], the time constant can be estimatedto be about 20 1us.For large transient variations in electron concentration the exact solution of 2.2 is complicated.However, assuming n0 >> n1, so that we can write n0 no + n1, which is true for high appliedvoltages or for traps lying below the Fermi level, the solution of equation 2.2 for n(t) =cos (wt) is given by:nT(t) = NT + [flT(0) — NTjexp{—c[(no + ni)t + flmaxSfl(Wt)/Wj} (2.4)where T (0) = initial density of the full traps. The physical system corresponding to the eq. 2.4is shown in Fig. 2.7.Equation 2.4 allows an examination of the trap filling time and shows that it is frequency-dependent. At high frequencies the transient response of the traps is not affected by the variationsin free electron density because flmas/W is small, but at low frequencies the variations in the free12V(t)SIGaAsV0Figure 2.7: Physical system corresponding to the differential equation 2.4 which is used for investigatingfrequency-dependent transients in SI GaAs. At t=O the switch is closed and the DC biasing voltage V0and the sinusoidal input V(t) are applied to a bar of SI GaAs, which is initially biased at V1.electron ‘density are important in determining the transient response. For a very short period of timesin(wt) wt and the time constant is given by:= 1/c(no + fli + ‘flmar). (2.5)For large t the exponential decay will be determined by exp[—cn(no + ni)t]. Thus the trap fillingtime constant will vary with time under transient conditions. This time constant can be in thenanosecond range at the initial stage of transient response and will be equal to r8 as approachingthe steady state. The charge on the deep level adjusts with a time constant T which varies from r0to i-s. In the frequency domain this means that for frequencies f >> 1/(2iri-) the deep level cannotfollow the variations in the electron concentration, which respond very fast to the changes in theapplied voltage. However, the time constant r is both time and spatially distributed and thereforethere will be a transitional frequency region in which the traps will partly respond. The chargeinjected into the semi-insulating substrate is equal to the free and trapped charge. At low frequencies[f << 1/(2irr)j the quasi-thermal equilibrium between the free and trapped electrons is maintained.Therefore, the applied voltage modulates both the free and trapped charge. However, only freeelectrons contribute to the conduction. Thus the low-frequency current-voltage characteristics will bet=O++Vi13similar to the static ones, including a steep rise in the current at the trap-filled-limit voltage. At highfrequencies [f>> l/(27rT)] the traps cannot follow the changes in the applied voltage. Therefore,only the free charge is modulated and the substrate behaves as a trap-free material. Thus the high-frequency current-voltage characteristics will exhibit a trap-free square law without a steep rise in thecurrent at any voltage. Therefore the set of dynamic current-voltage characteristics will be confinedin the triangle formed by the trap-filled-limit, trap-free square, and Ohm’s laws as shown in Fig.2.8. This can be interpreted in terms of the frequency-dependent trap-filled-limit voltage, whichwill be confined by the DC trap-filled-limit voltage in its upper low-frequency limit, and by thevoltage in which the transition from the Ohm’s law to the trap-free square law occurs in its lowerhigh-frequency limit. Thus the substrate small-signal resistance will exhibit a frequency dependenceat moderate frequencies, but will act as a simple resistance at low and high frequencies (neglectingthe electron transit-time effects). This frequency dependence is expected to occur in the megahertzrange, which is above the frequency limit (100kHz) of our low-frequency experimental arrangementthat was used to investigate the AC sidegating as a function of sidegate voltage.The above analysis shows that the semi-insulating GaAs can be represented as a bias andfrequency dependent conductance and capacitance in parallel. The impact of the resistive componentwill be more pronounced for low frequencies and for lower resistance. The resistance can be reducedfor example by:1. decrease in the sidegate - output pad separation2. increase of the magnitude of the applied negative bias voltageThus, one might observe this effect at low frequencies for the structures with a short separation.The experimental results between 1kHz - 100kHz for these structures are shown in Figs. 2.3 and2.4. At these frequencies the conduction in the substrate is not expected to be frequency dependent.The measured DC voltage at which the decrease of a small-signal resistance occurs is l.6V andO.3V for the l4m and 3m long structures respectively. At 1kHz and 10kHz the couplingvariation with the sidegate potential is clearly shown. This dependence is stronger for the shorterstructure. At 100kHz the sidegating is dominated by the capacitive coupling and therefore exhibitsa weaker bias dependence.14c-)VOLTAGEFigure 2.8: Schematic AC current-voltage characteristics for space-charge-limited conduction in SI GaAs attwo frequencies f2 > f1. The current will be confined in the triangle bounded by the linesformed by the DC traps-filled-limit voltage, the trap-free square law and the ohmic conduction.The capacitance between two long metal electrodes located on the dielectric substrate is determined by the ratio between the metal pad width and the separation distance [19]. A larger separationbetween the sidegate and the output contact weakens the coupling by decreasing the capacitanceand increasing the resistance between the two electrodes. It also increases the voltage required toinitiate the trap-filled space-charge-limited conduction in the semi-insulating GaAs substrate. For theapplied voltages well below the trap-filled-limit voltage, ohmic current through the semi-insulatingsubstrate is expected. One may anticipate typical parallel RC network bias-independent behaviour inthe frequency domain under these conditions. However, the experimental results which are shown inFig. 2.6 indicate different frequency dependence: output signal level increases with frequency until itsaturates at approximately 40MHz and increases again at higher frequencies (above 150MHz). Onepossible explanation of the experimental data is by the frequency dependence of the conductivity insemi-insulating material which stems from the potential fluctuations resulting from the non-uniformdistribution of donors and acceptors and the lack of screening by free carriers. Potential fluctuationsTRAP - FREESQUARE LAWincreasingfrequency15in p-n Si junctions have been discussed by Shockley [30], who pointed out that this phenomenon isimportant in highly-compensated material. Potential fluctuations existing in compensated and lightlydoped semiconductors were discussed in more detail by Shklovskii and Efros [31]. Recently thistheory was applied to the semi-insulating GaAs by Pistoulet et at. [32]. According to their model theAC conductivity starts from rDC, grows as w3 (s close to 1) over a wide range of frequencies andthen saturates as w continues to increase. Jonscher et a!. [33] also indicate the frequency-dependentconductivity of semi-insulating GaAs. The experimental data presented in Fig. 2.6 for large sidegate- output separation behaves below 150MHz qualitatively similar to the data shown by Pistoulet etat.. The high frequency response (above about 150MHz) is determined by the increasing capacitivecoupling.In conclusion the AC conductivity in the semi-insulating substrate was investigated over a widerange of frequencies. Analysis of the mechanisms conthbuting to the AC sidegating shows thatfor short distances between the ohmic contacts on the same semi-insulating GaAs substrate, thecapacitive-resistive coupling will be predominant. The resistive coupling, which probably stemsfrom the trap-filled space-charge-limited conduction through the semi-insulating substrate, is biasdependent and will be important for large sidegate voltages and for low frequencies. The resistivecoupling is also expected to be frequency-dependent at moderate frequencies, which are estimatedto be in the megahertz range. At low applied voltages, where the capacitive coupling prevails, theexperimental arrangement can be used for measuring the capacitance between the input and outputelectrodes following the procedure described in Ref. [34] applied to the two-terminal structure.For larger distances the coupling is reduced, and the AC sidegating will be characterized interms of the inherent AC conductivity properties of semi-insulating GaAs as described in Ref. [32].The frequency dependence in this case stems probably from the potential fluctuations exhibited incompensated and semi-insulating materials as a result of the non-uniform distribution of donors andacceptors and the absence of screening by free carriers.The relationship between DC and AC sidegating mechanisms has yet to be established . Thisrelationship is not obvious: the trap-filled space-charge-limited current is not the only conductionmechanism that should be considered. Additional mechanisms are possible and some of them can be16obscured by others. For example, because of the possible surface conduction between the devices,the space-charge-limited current through the substrate can be masked. In this case one can expect asmaller resistance at DC than at some higher frequencies where the surface states will not respond.This work shows that the frequency-domain measurements and analysis are important tools in thecrosstalk investigation, which allow the separation of the various effects contributing to the sidegating.2.3 AC Sidegating in GaAs MESFETsMESFET interaction has been simulated by applying a negative potential to a sidegate contact onthe SI GaAs substrate and examining its effect on a nearby MESFET located on the same substrate,e. g. [6]. This interaction requires an understanding of both the conduction mechanism throughthe SI GaAs substrate and the electric field distribution under the MESFET gate which depends onthe bias voltages. Improvements in GaAs technology, such as higher “quality” SI substrates, bettercontrol of fabrication steps, introduction of new processing techniques and new device structures willeventually reduce sidegating. One aim of the present analysis is to seek conditions for minimizationof sidegating through an understanding of the relation of thesidegating to the electric field distributionin the MESFET channel as determined by the bias voltages.The analytic expression for AC sidegating, derived in section 2.3.1 by using a distributed network,relates it in a simple manner to gate and sidegate voltages. The model parameters are evaluated inSection 2.3.2. The experimental data are presented in Section 2.3.3. The results of this work arediscussed in Section 2.3.4.2.3.1 ModelingAn equivalent circuit, which is distributed so as to be applicable to high frequencies, was used.To include substrate effects, iti particular conduction through the SI substrate, a 4-terminal networkrepresentation of the MESFET is required, where the fourth terminal represents the nearest sidegatecontact. The elements of the equivalent circuit are closely related to MESFET physical parameterscorresponding to the shape of the space charge distribution in the device as shown in Fig. 2.9. Theactive layer is bounded by a Schottky barrier contact and a SI substrate. The space charge regions,170 Ls LI IxGATEI In+n +SOURCE n- channel DRAINchannel -atedep1etioregionSEMI-INSULATING GaAsFigure 2.9: Schematic space charge distribution in a GaAs MESFEToperating in the saturation region with a negative gate bias.which are responsible for the channel current modulation, are modified as a result of applying avoltage to the gate and to the sidegate contact and are affected by the surface states on the GaAssurface. Several assumptions have been made.1. A channel is assumed to be uniformly doped in order to relate in a simple manner the elementsof the equivalent circuit to the bias voltages. Ion implantation into SI GaAs substrate is themost widely used technique for fabrication of GaAs integrated circuits and our measurementswere performed on low pinch-off ion-implanted GaAs MESFETs. However, in such devices aGaussian profile can be approximated by an effective uniform doping profile [35].2. The parasitic capacitances and resistances associated with gate-drain and gate-source regionshave been omitted in the distributed network. This is because the surface depletion layer thatexists in these regions causes a series resistance and a gate capacitance to be added to the intrinsicMESFET [36] only at low frequencies (below 10kHz) where the surface states can respond [37].At higher frequencies the gate-drain and the gate-source regions can be represented by pureresistances and the drain resistance is simply added to the external load resistance. The absenceof the source resistance in the network can be justified because it is virtually grounded to the18AC grounded gate through the gate capacitance at high gate bias voltages. With decrease inthe gate bias the gate capacitance decreases and thus cannot serve as an AC ground, but thechannel resistance becomes larger and the source resistance can be neglected with respect toit. It is important to stress that the source resistance must be considered for the MESFET withdouble-gate excitation (gate and sidegate) since the gate is not AC grounded in this case.3. The distance between the sidegate and the source is assumed to be much larger than the drain-to-source distance. This allows the region between the sidegate and the MESFET channel to berepresented as a uniform R-C network.4. The shunt leakage resistance of the gate depletion layer is neglected. This resistance mayintroduce a large time constant which may affect the analysis at low frequencies.In the linear mode of MESFET operation for small drain-to-source voltages the intrinsic MESFETcan be represented by an R-C transmission line [38, 39] with the channel resistance rh and the gatecapacitance c3 per unit length as parameters. Shulman and Young [40] have suggested that the regionof semi-insulating material between two ohmic contacts can be modeled as a R-C network. Thus aR-C network, where the resistance r5 represents the conduction through the GaAs SI substrate, theseries capacitance cb represents the space charge region formed at the substrate-channel interface, theresistance Tb represents the conduction through the substrate-channel interface, the parallel capacitancec5 describes the coupling between the sidegate electrode and the MESFET channel, was added tothe circuit. In saturation the longitudinal MESFET cross-section can be roughly divided into tworegions according to the electric field distribution in the channel. We assume that the electron velocitysaturates when the electric field reaches E5 at distance i. from the source, which corresponds to theboundary between two regions in the device. The resultant network is shown in Fig. 2.10. Thenetwork parameters in the first region (0 < x < 1) are evaluated as follows. The gate depletion layerthickness at distance x from the source is given by:d(x) = — VG — V(x)j/qND, (2.6)where is the permittivity of GaAs, IV is effective uniform donor density, VB is the built-in voltage,VG is the gate potential relative to source and V(x) is the channel potential at distance x from the19Drain-Figure 2.10: Disthbuted network for a GaAs MESFET in the saturation region.source, which is E5x. The channel resistance and gate capacitance can be approximated as:1Th(X)= qNDw{a — d(x)]k I E3k2 1 (2.7)qNDwa(k — 1) [1 + 214(k —w 1c(x) [12(VB VG)Xj (2.8)where is the low-field electron mobility, w is the device width, a is the channel thickness,= qNDa2/2E is the pinch-off voltage and k = — VG). Eqn. (2.7) and (2.8) canbe considered as first-order approximations of exponential functions, so that we can write [38]rh(x) rh0e (2.9)andc(x) (2.10)whereTcho= qNDwa(k — 1)’(2.11)k2Ea= 2(k 1)’ (2.12)= Ewk/a (2.13)-Gate1iOSidegate 1Ls20and= 2(VB- VG)(2.14)The differential equation for the first region for the sidegate excitation is given by:02’v Ov— a—— rh(x){jw[c3( )+ c5] + ys}V = Tch(X)(jWCs +y5)V9, (2.15)where the AC potentials of the channel and sidegate were designated correspondingly by v and v,and Ys = [r5 + r&/(1 + jwcbrb)] . An analytic solution of (2.15), given in Appendix B, can beobtained by assuming that wc,(x) >> wc, Ys and a = 3. The first assumption is reasonable for aMESFET operating at intermediate and high frequencies and for relatively low substrate conductionbetween the sidegate terminal and the MESFET. The second requirement imposesl’, = 4(VB — VG),which corresponds to the condition that the gate depletion layer at the source end is equal to half ofthe device thickness. This condition may appear to severely restrict our analysis since it becomesvalid only for one particular value of the gate voltage. However, this gate biasing voltage correspondsto the normal mode of MESFET operation. Thus, the following analysis can serve as indication ofthe sidegating dependence on the gate bias around its typical value. Furthermore, no restrictionswere made on the drain-to-source voltage. Therefore, the sidegating behavior due to the variationsin drain-to-source voltage can be investigated.In the second region (i < x < 1) the channel resistance and the gate capacitance are assumedto be constant and are given by Tchs = Tchoe1’and c =c0e(°”). The differential equation forthe second region is given by:02 v— [jwQ33 + c5) + ys]rchsv (jWCs + Ys)Th5v g . (2.16)The solution of the above equation is given in Appendix A. Combining (2.15) and (2.16) with theboundary conditions zero potential at z = 0 and x I and current and potential continuity at x =yields the following expression for sidegate transconductance [i(l)/vsgj:— WC5 + y 1A+pe /2)1[1 — coth(p15)]— e(’’)[a/2 —pcoth(p13)]2mb—Au jwc0rhS/u2 (2.17)_e[_u(l_1)][u—a/2 —pcoth(p15)j—pcoth(pi3)—21wherep = + jwrchocjo,u = i.,/Tchs[JW(Cjs + c8) + y5] andA = [c/2 +pcoth(p13)]sinh[u( — la)] + ucosh[u(l —For practical device parameters eqn. (2.17) reduces to:mb (jwc8 + ys)/U. (2.18)2.3.2 Determination of model parametersThe method used to evaluate the MESFET equivalent circuit parameters was simple and fast atsome expense of accuracy. The channel resistance was obtained from the current-voltage characteristics of the MESFET operating in the linear region using an HP 4145A semiconductor parameteranalyzer (SPA). The substrate resistance was evaluated from the sidegate current-voltage measurements using the SPA. The substrate resistance measured between 0 and -3 volts was 2GQ. Theresistance was drastically reduced below -3V. Interpretation of the sidegate current-voltage characteristics is difficult and can lead to significant errors in the resistance evaluation [41]. Our DCmeasurements [42, 43] and the hysteresis observed by other researchers [15] suggest the possibilityof double injection into the semi-insulating substrate. Even a small amount of hole injection from thechannel into the substrate will result in most of the resistance being near the hole-injecting contact[41]. Consequently we assigned rb to be 95% of the measured resistance.The coupling capacitance between the sidegate and the channel was estimated to be 15fF usingthe graphs of the characteristic impedance of coplanar strips given in [19]. Measurements of the small-geometry MESFET gate capacitance followed a procedure similar to that in [34]. The source anddrain terminals were fed from a common AC source. The AC current through the gate was fed into aKeithley 417 high speed picoammeter, whose output was connected to a Princeton Applied Research5204 lock-in amplifier. The capacitance was evaluated from the measurements of the capacitive partof the AC current through a Schottky barrier. The measured gate capacitance of the depletion-mode22MESFET for VG = —O.1V at 1kHz was 80fF. The measurements at lower frequencies showed highervalues of the gate capacitance. This is consistent with effects due to the presence of the deep levelsin the device [44] and to the presence of the surface states in the gate-source and gate-drain spacingswhich increase the effective gate capacitance [36]. To avoid these problems the measurements athigher frequencies are preferred, which in our case were limited to 1kHz by the frequency responseof the system. The capacitance of ion-implanted devices for the gate voltages lower and higher thanVG = —O.1V were found by [45]c30(1— VG/O.75V)’33, (2.19)where c30 is zero-bias gate capacitance. Measurement of the capacitance associated with a channel-substrate interface is difficult due to the existence of a very high series resistance presented by thesubstrate [46] and therefore it was calculated using the equation for the width of the channel-substratedepletion region as a function of voltage given in [47].2.3.3 Comparison with experimental resultsExperiments were performed on recessed-gate depletion and enhancement mode ion-implantedGaAs MESFETs made at a commercial foundry. The gate length of the transistors was 1 pm andtheir width was 52 pm. The length of the regions between the gate and the source and betweenthe gate and the drain was 2 pm. The sidegate was located parallel to the source at a distance 14pm. An HP 4145A SPA was used to bias a GaAs MESFET: the drain terminal was connected tothe parameter analyzer through the load resistor(l50 ohm), while the gate was biased directly andthe source was grounded. The sidegate was negatively biased with respect to the source and wasconnected to the signal generator, while the drain was connected to the lock-in amplifier. Figures2.11-2.16 compare the sidegating experimental data as a function of frequency and various biasconditions with results calculated by (2.18). AC sidegating as a function of the gate bias for thedepletion mode MESFET operating at small drain-to-source voltage is shown in Fig. 2.11. Fig.2.12 shows the AC sidegating dependence on the gate bias for the enhancement mode transistoroperating at small drain-to-source voltage. The dependence of AC sidegating on the gate bias for23-50 I I I I-55-60W‘175 I I I I I-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4GATE BIAS (V)Figure 2.11: Experimental (dashed line) and calculated (solid line) dependences of AC sidegating on the gatebias for a depletion-mode GaAs MESFET operating at VDD = 0.5V, VSG = —3V, 100kHz.Parameters: cb = 15.4fF, r = 1.1G2, r3 = O.O6GQ, c8 = 15fF. Zero bias gate capacitance is 90fF.the depletion mode transistor operating at large drain-to-source voltage is shown Fig. 2.13. Thedependence of sidegating on the drain-to-source voltage is presented in Fig. 2.14. The sidegatingexhibits less than 1dB variation over the range of 2-4 volts. AC sidegating as a function of thesidegate bias is shown in Fig. 2.15. The sidegating increases below -3V which corresponds to thethreshold voltage in the DC sidegate current-voltage characteristics (see subsection 2.3.2). Finallythe sidegating frequency dependence is shown in Fig. 2.16.23.4 DiscussionThe assumptions in the above analysis restrict its validity at low frequencies. Surface states associated with gate-source and gate-drain spacings may cause these regions to respond to the variations24z0.6GATE BIAS (V)Figure 2.12: Experimental (dashed line) and calculated (solid line) dependences of AC sidegating on the gatebias for a enhancement-mode GaAs MESFET operating at VDD = O.5V, VSG = —1 V, 100kHz.Parameters: C6 = 17fF, 1b= 2.8G2, r3= 0.15Gl, c = 15ff. Zero bias gate capacitance is 10fF.in the sidegate potential. A recent analysis of low-frequency dispersion of gate transconductancein GaAs MESFETs, which relates it to the surface states, indicates that it will be important below1kHz [48]. The frequency response of the sidegating shown in Fig. 2.16 can be roughly divided intotwo regions. The frequency response below 5kHz is probably controlled by the surface states. Thefrequency response above 10kHz is due to the capacitive and resistive coupling between the side-gate and the MESFET channel. The present experimental data confirm the theory in that at higherfrequencies, in which MESFETs normally operate, the sidegating grows as wi!2.The dependence of the sidegating on the gate bias given by (2.18) originates from the followingrelation:mb 1/TchsCjs — d) (2.20)-950.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.525z0zrzFigure 2.13: Experimental (dashed line) and calculated (solid line) dependencesof AC sidegatmg on the gate bias for a depletion-mode GaAs MESFET atVDD = 3V, VSG —1V, 100kHz. Parameters: cb = 17fF, r, = 2.8G2, r3 = O.15GQ, c3 = 15ff.Thus, a parabolic dependence of AC sidegating on gate bias with a maximum at the bias correspondingto a half-depleted channel is expected. Generally, this behavior was indeed observed for MESFETsoperating at small drain-source voltage as shown in Fig. 2.11 and 2.12. Sidegating for depletion modeGaAs MESFETs exhibits a maximum as a function of gate potential due to the fact that the conductivelayer in these transistors can change drastically in thickness as it goes from a fully open channel toa very thin layer as a result of applying a gate bias and the condition of a half-depleted channel canbe reached. The channel in the enhancement mode transistors is already depleted for zero gate bias.This means that the fully open channel can be achieved only at high gate voltages. As a consequence,the gate bias for which maximum sidegating is obtained shifts to higher voltages (see Fig. 2.12). Forlarge drain-to-source voltage the sidegating increases and eventually saturates with gate bias (see Fig.-74-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4GATE BIAS (V)26-40 I-45.-e -0-55.-60-65-701 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4DRAIN-TO-SOURCE VOLTAGE (V)Figure 2.14: Experimental (dashed line) and calculated (solid line) dependences of AC sidegating on thedrain-to-source voltage for a depletion-mode GaAs MESFET operating at VG = OV, VSG = —2V, 100kHz.Parameters: cb = 16.3ff, rb = 3.2GQ, r3 = O.17G0, c = 15fF, rChS 210Q, c5 84ff.2.13). The minimal thickness of the gate depletion layer in the high-field region is determined by thedrain voltage. This results in a conductive layer that normally is well below half the device thicknessfor any gate bias. Therefore the sidegating does not exhibit a maximum as a function of gate voltagebut rather increases monotonically with it. Our calculated results show good qualitative agreementwith data for devices biased far away from pinch-off. This is probably due to the slowly-varying R-Cproduct of the channel under these biasing conditions. At high gate voltages the leakage resistancemust be taken into account. At lower gate voltages near pinch-off our calculations indicate lowersidegating, because eqn. (2.19) overestimates the gate capacitance in this region.Our experimental observations indicate that, when the device is biased near pinch-off, ACsidegating diminishes drastically in magnitude and is often accompanied by oscillations which makes27-.1zC.) -65Figure 2.15: Experimental (dashed line) and calculated (solid line) dependences ofAC sidegating on the sidegate bias for a depletion-mode GaAs MESFET operating at= 0V, VDD = 0.5V, 10kHz. Parameters: rh, = 1752, c = 90fF, c = 15ff.it very difficult to perform accurate measurements. This abrupt decrease in sidegating is due to avery large Tch8Cj5 product. Lehovec and Zuleeg [491 evaluated the R-C product of the channel nearthe pinch-off region. They suggested that its large value is due to very low mobilities of electronsat the channel-substrate interface caused by extensive trapping. Therefore the channel resistancewill be determined mostly by the properties of the semi-insulating substrate. The observed low-frequency oscillations are supporting evidence for this interpretation since they have been observedin semi-insulating GaAs [501.The sidegating depends on drain-to-source voltages only by way of channel-length modulation.Therefore, the sidegating in the saturation region, will not be too sensitive to the variations in drain-to-source voltage as indeed was observed in the experimental results shown in Fig. 2.14.-75-6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -lSIDEGATE BIAS (V)28-60-62-64Z -66z -z-70-72-74-76-78102FREQUENCY (Hz)Figure 2.16: Experimental (dashed line) and calculated (solid line) frequency dependence ofsidegating for depletion-mode GaAs MESFET operating at VG = 0V, VDD = 0.5V, VSG = —1V.Parameters: rhS = 175, c = 90fF, cb = 17fF, rb = 2.8G, i’3 = 0.15G2, c8 = 15fF.Fig. 2.15 shows a strong dependence of AC sidegating on sidegate voltages between -3 and -6volts. These experimental observations are in qualitative agreement with the modeling results whichpredict that as the negative sidegate bias increases in magnitude the substrate resistance diminishes,thus increasing the sidegating intensity. The abrupt change in the sidegating as a result of applyinga sidegate voltage below -3V has been taken as indicating the possibility of the injection currentconduction in the semi-insulating substrate. However, r5 is not the only parameter that relates thesidegating to the sidegate bias: cb which represents the the space charge region at the channelsubstrate interface may play a significant role in determining AC sidegating. When the sidegatevoltage increases in magnitude more and more electrons are injected into the substrate. Due tothe injection effects the channel-substrate capacitance will be probably higher than that evaluated in10 10 1029this work. This could explain the large discrepancy between the calculated results and the data athigh sidegate voltages. The network parameters r3 and cb are expected to be frequency dependent.The substrate resistance is expected to be smaller at higher frequencies for short distances betweenMESFET and sidegate [401. The capacitance is expected to be larger at low frequencies because ofthe finite time constant associated with the charging and discharging of the traps in semi-insulatingmaterial [51].In conclusion, distributed network analysis has been applied to the interpretation of the sidegatingeffect in GaAs MESFETs. Analytic expressions for the sidegating were derived and using a simplemodel were related to the bias voltages. Results presented in Fig. 2.15 show that AC conductionthrough the substrate plays an important role in determining the sidegating. The accuracy of thepresent model could be increased by retaining the same equivalent circuit but using more sophisticatedmodels for the network parameters. The experimental data presented in this thesis agree qualitativelywith the sidegating model expressed as a function of the frequency and bias voltages. The sidegatingfor the MESFET operating in the saturation region will not be sensitive to the variations in the drain-to-source voltage. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this work is that the sidegatingeffect can be reduced by applying the lowest possible gate bias to MESFET or in other words, byoperating the device at low current.2.4 SummaryThe mechanisms of crosstalk in n-SI-n GaAs structures were investigated over a frequency rangeof lOOHz-500MHz. The sidegating mechanism was found to be dependent on the frequency andon the distance between the sidegate and the output contacts. The crosstalk can be represented asa parallel RC network, where the capacitance is associated with the interaction of fringing fieldsaround the input and output electrodes.For shorter distances the resistive component represents a conductive path through the semiinsulating GaAs substrate normally associated with the trap-filled space-charge-limited current. Ingeneral the resistance will be bias-dependent. Furthermore, it is expected to be frequency-dependent30because of the finite time constant associated with the charging and discharging of the traps insemi-insulating GaAs.For longer distances the capacitive coupling is reduced. Also a higher biasing voltage is requiredin order to initiate the space-charge-limited current for the distant input and output contacts. Thusat low voltages the resistive component is associated with the ohmic leakage current through thesubstrate. This resistance exhibits a frequency dependent conductivity, which is a result of potentialfluctuations in the compensated semiconductor.At low frequencies the capacitive coupling is reduced and the resistive coupling tends to prevail.At high enough frequencies capacitive coupling dominates disregarding the distance between theinput and output electrodes.The bias and frequency dependence of AC sidegating in GaAs MESFETs was modeled usinga distributed R-C network. The resultant analytic expression for the sidegate transconductance wascompared with experimental results over the range of 100Hz - 100kHz. They agreed in that thesidegating at small drain-to-source voltage exhibits a maximum as a function of gate bias, whileat large drain-to-source voltage the sidegating increases and eventually saturates with gate voltage,and is not sensitive to drain-to-source voltage. The present experimental measurements show thatAC sidegating (like DC) is greatly enhanced after a negatively biased sidegate reaches a threshold.Both experimental data and the model show that AC sidegating increases approximately as wh/2 athigh frequencies.31Chapter 3The role of minority carriers in the sidegating effect3.1 IntroductionA field-effect transistor has been always a synonym to a unipolar transistor in the literature [52,53]. This is not surprising, considering the nature of contacts, that constitute a MESFET: source anddrain are ohmic contacts and therefore are unable to inject holes, and Schottky contacts practicallydo not inject holes according to the early studies by Scharfetter [54] and Yu and Snow [551. We,however, show in this chapter that the gate of a MESFET can inject holes and this results in parasiticeffects that severely degrade the MESFET performance.In Section 3.2 we investigate sidegating under conditions of low-level injection, for which theexcess free holes and electrons are much less than equilibrium hole and electron concentrationsrespectively. Without further assumptions we solve analytically continuity equations for holes andelectrons plus Poisson’s equation. The results show that the presence of recombination centers in theSI substrate and even weak hole injection from the gate significantly enhance sidegating. In Section3.3 we propose a mesurement technique to evaluate this hole injection, and our experimental resultsconfirm the participation of holes in sidegating. In Section 3.4 our analysis deals mainly with high-level hole injection and we discuss hysteresis in current-voltage characteristics, geometrical effectsand process-related issues in sidegating as a result of hole injection.3.2 Sidegating effect under conditions of low-level injection3.2.1 IntroductionWeak sidegating has been observed for small sidegate voltages and currents by many researchers,e.g. [8]. In spite of the insulating substrate the sidegate acts as if it were close to the MESFETchannel, suggesting that there is a mechanism which transfers the applied voltage to the vicinity ofMESFET.32Most research has concentrated on strong sidegating accompanied by high-level electron injectioninto the substrates and predicting the magnitude of a threshold voltage, at which a sharp decreasein the drain current occurs [22, 56]. In this chapter an analysis of weak sidegating is given, whichoccurs below the threshold voltage. In this range of voltage only low-level injection occurs i.e. theinjected densities of free carriers are much less than the equilibrium free carrier densities. While therestrictions on the concentration of injected minority carriers are harsh in the case of an extrinsicsemiconductor, they are less severe for SI GaAs in which the equilibrium carrier densities of electronsand holes are not very different from each other. The low-injection regime is valid up to the voltageat which a deviation from ohmic behavior occurs. For material with deep traps, the threshold isthe traps-filled-limit voltage or the voltage, at which negative resistance appears[7]. This thresholddepends on material properties such as trap densities and distribution, minority carrier lifetime, andhomogeneity of the substrate. The threshold voltage could be measured and provided to circuitdesigners as a designation of the “disaster” area, similar to providing maximum operating drainvoltages. The modeling of the low-injection region is more relevant to them, since it occurs inthe operating region of transistors. The results of the analysis are provided with flexible boundaryconditions, which allow the investigation of a variety of physical situations.3.2.2 Sidegating modelMany numerical studies of isolation in GaAs integrated circuits, performed on symmetrical n-i-nstructures, have been published recently[22, 57, 56]. Some of the studies deal with transport equationsfor majority carriers only, e.g. [56], while others provide more general analysis, but assume restrictiveboundary conditions such as ohmic contacts at the edges of the structure [221.These studies do not consider the interaction between gate and sidegate. Our measurementsshown in Fig. 3.17 and experimental data by other researchers [58] indicate interaction between gatecurrent and sidegate voltage. The gate current consists of the saturation current of a Schottky diodeand the current to a sidegate. Since the saturation current is small, changes in the gate current uponapplying sidegate voltage can be easily observed. In Fig. 3.17 the gate current is negative for sidegate33160 1o10_li0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10SIDEGATE VOLTAGE (V)Figure 3.17: ‘Trpical drain and gate currents as a function of sidegate voltage (VD = 2 V, VG = 0 V). Themeasurements were performed in the dark on depletion-mode MESFETs fabricated by ion implantation into a SIsubstrate. The typical threshold voltage was —0.6 V. The gate length was 1pm and width 4pm. The gate-sourceand gate-drain distances were 2pm. The ohmic contact of the adjacent MESFET, which served as a sidegatein our measurements, was placed parallel to the source at a distance of 8pm and was 23pm from the gate.voltage between 0 and —2 V and it is positive for sidegate voltages more negative than —2 V. Alsonoteworthy is a rapid increase in the gate current when the MESFET is almost pinched off.High Schottky barriers in MESFETs are beneficial, because they increase the noise marginin GaAs digital integrated circuits. But high barriers create an inversion layer beneath the gate,which may inject holes under forward bias conditions, although there is some controversy regardingthe magnitude of hole injection[59]. Thus n-i-n structures, in which hole injection is negligible,represent only one particular case of channel-substrate interaction. These structures may representthe conductive path from sidegate to drain and source, but not necessarily that from sidegate tochannel.The channel region of the MESFET is sandwiched between two closely spaced depletion regions,which are associated with the. Schottky barrier and the channel-substrate interface. Since the Schottkydepletion region is thin, the study of hole injection from the gate should be based on thermionic1208040l08l01 0 1034(b)DistanceFigure 3.18: Hole injection from Schottky gate. (a) Fora small sidegate voltage. (b) For a large sidegate voltage.emission theory[60}. Figure 3.18(a) depicts the situation for a small sidegate voltage, when thechannel is not depleted and a negligible hole current is expected. The drain current decreases uponapplying a negative voltage to a sidegate. Larger negative voltages cause a reach-through depletionof the channel as shown in Fig. 3.18(b). A situation similar to reach-through has been analyzed byWager and McCamant [61], who showed using thermionic emission theory that the hole current canGATE CHANNEL SUBSTRATEElectronEnergyA EFJp(a)EcEvEvJp.EF—35greatly exceed the electron current. We suggest that the sidegating is accompanied by an increase inhole current at the gate. By applying a negative voltage to the sidegate the conductive part of thechannel shrinks, allowing more holes to reach the substrate. As we shall see in the next section thehole injection creates a field overshoot causing a high voltage drop in the vicinity of the channel-substrate interface. Consequently, most of the additional applied voltage will drop near this regioncausing an even stronger depletion of the channel. This will lower the hole injection barrier allowingfor many more holes to be injected. Thus this process is self-supporting and for high enough voltageswill result in a reach-through depletion of the channel and a rapid increase in the gate (hole) current.An additional source of holes is the avalanche process due to high drain voltage. Electron-holepairs are generated in the channel. The holes are attracted to the substrate due to an assisting fieldat the channel-substrate interface, while the electrons “see” an energy barrier of approximately halfthe band-gap.3.2.3 Detailed analysisAn analytical study of the potential distribution in SI substrates has been made by Ohno andGoto [62]. Their analysis was based on the assumption of local space-charge neutrality, but wereport an analysis free of this assumption. Manifacier and Henisch have investigated minority-carrierinjection into semiconductors with and without traps by solving linearized transport equations[63,64, 411. Their detailed analysis was applied mainly to semi-infinite and long structures. We haveextended the analysis of Manifacier and Henisch by incorporating both recombination centers andtraps into Poisson’s equation. We report a closed foim for the space-charge, electric field andpotential distribution in SI short structures.The schematic equilibrium band diagram of the structure analyzed in this paper is shown inFig. 3.19. The sidegate n+ region is assumed to inject only electrons, while the other contact isassigned a variable injection ratio Additional boundary conditions, which simplify the solution,are zero field at x 0 and x = L [41]. Because of short carrier lifetimes in SI GaAs and distancesbetween MESFETs in integrated circuits, which are typically long in comparison to diffusion length,recombination must be considered. Even though GaAs is a direct band-gap material, the presence36GATE CHANNEL SUBSTRATE SIDEGATEElectronEnergyDistanceFigure 3.19: Schematic band diagram of the gate-sidegate structure in equilibrium.of a high density of deep levels in this material dominates the recombination process[65]. Theinsulating properties of the GaAs substrate are based on the balance between shallow donors andacceptors, and deep levels. The mid-gap deep donor EL2 with a concentration of about 1016 cm3plays an dominant role in the compensation mechanism[26]. Nevertheless EL2 acts as a trap ratherthan a recombination center because of its small hole capture cross section. SI GaAs may containhigh densities of deep acceptors in addition to EL2[66, 67]. Wong et al. have proposed some ofthem as recombination centers with an estimated concentration of at least 5 x 1015 cm3[681. Anygeneral discussion of transport in semi-insulating GaAs should include a dominant recombinationcenter in addition to EL2. Under conditions of low-level injection the recombination rate determinedby Shockley-Read-Hall model is given by [41]:fl+fle6p (321)—T(Pe+fle)where 6n, 5p are excess free electrons and holes, e Pe are equilibrium electron and hole concentrations, and r is the lifetime. The linearized current density and continuity equations can be writtenas[63, 64]b / d6N1 + Fej\E + (3.22)I I37-‘1’ ipe(E_)(3.23)ej+_1p(Pe6N+6P)=;O (3.24)___—Pe—1+.Pe(Pe6N + 6P) = 0 (3.25)with= E/q/nr(ne +pe), (3.26)where- q is the magnitude of the electronic charge, is electron mobility, e is the dielectric constant,and b is ratio of electron to hole mobility. The parameters 61’J, 6P and Fe represent excess free carriersand equilibrium hole concentration respectively, normalized to the equilibrium electron concentration.The field is normalized to kT/qLD, the current density to /tpkT(fle + Pe)/LD and X = X/LD,where=./[ekT/q2(n + Pe)] (3.27)Poisson’s equation can be written for the general case of non-interacting multiple traps. Theconcentration of the jth trap occupied by electrons under steady-state condition is given by[691Nt (c n + et )q = - p (3.28)cn+e+c,p+ewhere N is the th trap density, e, e, are its emission rates for electrons and holes,c, c, arethe capture probabilities for electrons and holes, and n, p are electron and hole concentrations. Inequilibrium the occupied density of the jth trap is given byq = (3.29)iewhere n is equilibrium electron concentration, and n is electron density if the Fermi level were atthe energy level of the th trap. The excess trapped carrier density is(q — q). (3.30)38It can be expressed under low-level injection as6q = cp — (3.31)withNCfle (3.32)=N’e (333)(n+ne)(e+cne+e,+c,pe)In this work we consider only EL2 and a dominant recombination center. The Poisson equation ismodified to include these two traps:dE 1— l+FeP_N+6’+6C2 (3.34)where 6Q, CQ are the concentrations correspondingly of the deep traps (EL2) and recombinationcenters occupied by electrons and normalized to the equilibrium electron density. Carrier concentration, field, and potential profiles are obtained from eqs. (3.22)-(3.25), and (3.34):M cosh (X/i) — R cosh ((L — X)J)6N(X) = /sinh(L/)+Fe cosh (x) + K cosh ((L — (3.35)sinh (L/)6P(X) = A[MPC cosh (X) + K cosh ((L — X))i/sinh (L.,/) (3.36)M cosh(X/) — Rcosh((L— X)’)1/7sinh(L\/)E(X) = A{’ + i3) — M(1 + sinh (X)— K sinh ((L — X)/)+An(Pe + b) sinh (L’) (337)M sinh (X) + R sinh ((L — X)/)-R}+sinh(L,/)V(X) = ;(1 + cx)M —(1 + 3)An(Pe + b)F(cosh (Xv’) — i) + K[cosh ((L — X)1j) — cosh (L1/)]+i/sinh (L/) (3.38)—M(cosh (X/) — 1) — R[cosh ((L — X)/) — cosh (LI)]+ RX}/sinh (L/)3910102iO-10-10 -.- -•-- :------.1 0—13 I I I I0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20MICROMETERSFigure 3.20: Concentration profile of trapped and free excess carriers in the 2Opm long model structure. Thesolid line corresponds to trapped carriers, dashed line to electrons, and dashdots to holes. The carrier densitiesare normalized to the equilibrium electron concentration The sidegate voltage is —5V, the equilibriumelectron concentration is 7 x 106 cm3, the equilibrium hole concentration is 2 x iO cm3, the electronmobility is 4 x iOcm2/Vscc, the hole mobility is 400 cm2/Vsec, and the lifetime is 1 nsec. EU isassumed to be 0.75eV from the conduction band, its density 1016 cm3,and the ratio of its capture crosssections for holes and electrons iO. The recombination center is assumed to be 0.65eV fromthe conduction band, with density 1015 cm3, and the ratio of its capture cross sections 100.with p = [P(1+)+(i+fl)j/(1+P), = An(Pe+1)/(1+Pe), K = (b+Pe) — Fe,M = (1+3—Ab)/(1+a—A), R = ii(b—M)+M, A = J(1+Pe)/b(M+Pe).Thezeropotential reference point is taken at x=0 (see Fig. 3.19). The parameter A is determined by theapplied voltage at x=L.Fig. 3.20 shows the distribution of trapped and free carrier concentrations throughout the structurewith t’pical trap densities in SI GaAs (N1 = 1016 cm3,N2 = 1015 cm3) and for an appliedvoltage of —5 V. The MESFET was assumed to inject holes only. The results shown on Fig.40101>-C,, 10°L)NCz10-1MICROMETERSFigure 3.21: Concentration profile of trapped excess carriers as in Fig. 3.20, but only in thevicinity of hole injecting edge (x=0). The charge profile changes polarity at around 0.4pm.3.20 indicate that the local space-charge neutrality is not preserved at any point along the structure.The investigated structure (see Fig. 3.18) represents only part of the two-terminal system, which isconfined between two zero-field points. This means that the total excess charge in the structure iszero. Thus the total space-charge neutrality in the structure is preserved, even though local is not.Excess free carrier densities in the structure are below carrier equilibrium values in agreement withconditions of low-level injection. The densities of excess free carriers are far below the trapped carrierdensity, which means that only the trapped carriers need be considered in the Poisson’s equation.Fig. 3.21 presents a more detailed picture of the trapped carrier concentration in the vicinity ofthe hole injecting edge. The trapped charge is positive in the very narrow region adjacent to theedge, but is negative throughout rest of the structure. This is a reason for an electric field overshoot0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 24135302510500Figure 3.22: Electric field profile in the investigated structure with the sameparameters as in Fig. 3.20, but for different densities of recombination centers: dotscorrespond to 1016 cm3, dashed line to 1015 cm3, and solid line to 1014 cm3.at about 0.4 i.im from the edge as shown in Fig. 3.22. This figure also illustrates the effect of theconcentration of recombination centers on the field profile, while keeping the EL2 trap density fixed at1016 cm3. Reduction of the recombination center density results in a decrease of the field overshoot.In the remaining portions of the structure the electric field is far below the value anticipated for thecase of ohmic conduction (5V/20un = 2.5kV/cm). Fig. 3.22 shows that for material with a highdensity of traps most of the applied voltage drops across the region adjacent to the hole injectingedge, as expected from the presence of the field overshoot depicted in Fig. 3.23.The effect of hole injection on the field and potential profiles is shown in Fig. 3.24 and 3.25respectively. Hole injection increases the field overshoot and creates a non-uniform voltagedistribution across the structure.2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20MICROMETERS42-3.5-4.5Figure 3.23: Potential profile corresponding to the conditions described in Fig. 3.22.3.2.4 DiscussionOur analysis indicates that the availability of recombination centers and hole injection in thesubstrate significantly increase the voltage drop in the vicinity of the channel-substrate interface, whichin turn may modulate the carrier concentration in the channel or in other words cause sidegating.While the presence of a high density of recombination centers is confirmed by experimental data [681,there are not many studies on hole injection into a SI substrate. As was mentioned, the existence ofthe inversion layer beneath the gate due to the high Schottky barrier makes hole injection from thegate into the channel possible. Scharfetter has shown that the minority carrier injection in Schottkydiodes is negligible because of the small voltage drop across the neutral part of the Schottky diodeover a wide range of currents [54]. He, however, considered epitaxial diodes which were long incomparison to the channel thickness of about 0.1 — 0.2 um in modem GaAs MESFETs. Furthermore,0-0.5—1-1.5-2-2.5-3-4-50MICROMETERS4325E20.f\l5U—U 105Od —:--MICROMETERSFigure 3.24: Electhc field profile in the investigated structure with the sameparameters as in Fig. 3.20, but for different values of the minority carrierinjection (ij): dots correspond to ij=1, dashed line to 0.5, and solid line to 0.most MESFETs are fabricated by ion implantation, which creates a non-uniform impurity profileand consequently a built-in field. This field will assist holes to move into the SI substrate, whileimpeding electrons.Zero field is assumed at the edges of the structure, which implies no space-charge in the structurein equilibrium (zero current). But the edges are located at the junctions between doped and SI regions,which exhibit a built-in field and space-charge. Although our analytic results are thus not valid inequilibrium, with structures some tens of micrometers long, only a small error is introduced in theoverall potential profiles under non-equilibrium conditions. This is because of a small voltage dropacross the heavily doped regions. The depletion region into the channel is small and the zero-fieldpoint at the edge of this region will not be far away from the channel-substrate interface. With44-0.5-2.5-3.5-4.520increase in applied voltage there will be an extension of the depletion region into the channel. Butthis extension will be small in comparison to the overall structure. So the boundary conditionsintroduce only a small error in the overall potential profile across the SI material.The extension of the depletion layer into the channel upon increasing a negative bias on thesidegate may be small in comparison to the sidegate-gate distance, but significant with respect to thechannel thickness. To obtain a quantitative picture we superimpose a potential profile of channel-substrate junction in equilibrium with a non-equilibrium potential profile across the SI substrate asshown schematically in Fig. 3.26. Over a wide range of biasing conditions the substrate space-charge density at the channel-substrate junction is a sum of density of deep(Nda) and shallow(Nsa)acceptors[70]. The space-charge may be even higher because of the possible presence of deep levelsat the channel-substrate interface created by implantation damage. We assume an abrupt channel-MICROMETERSFigure 3.25: Potential profile corresponding to the conditions described in Fig. 3.24.-1-1.5-50 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1845CHANNEL SUBSTRATE SIDEGATEFigure 3.26: Schematic superimposition of the potential profile across the investigatedstructure in the presence of a sidegate voltage V0 (dashed line), and for zero appliedvoltage (solid line). W1 designates the width of the substrate-channel depletion layer.substrate junction with the depletion layer consisting mostly of the substrate depletion region, whichis consequently given in equilibrium by:W1 1/2Vbj/q(Nda + Nsa) (3.39)where is the built-in potential of the channel-substrate interface, which is approximately equalto but less than half the band-gap. The voltage across the channel-substrate junction is given byeqn. (3.38) at x = W1. This voltage can be used in evaluating a pinchoff voltage of ion-implantedMESFETs following the procedures in [351. The width of the channel depletion region is [71]—/‘bi_V(Wl))(17da+Nsa) 340—V q&h(Nh + Nda + Nsa)where Nh is the channel donor density.We have presented a one-dimensional analysis of sidegating, which ignores the drain-sourcefield. The next question that we should ask is how the gate can communicate with the sidegatein the presence of a large drain voltage. For a MESFET biased in saturation, a high-field regionis established in the gate-drain region, while the field of about 2 — 3 kV/cm is sustained in theWi L46gate-source region. Since the gate-sidegate field can be comparable to that in the latter region, someof the holes that are injected from the gate towards the source can reach the substrate. To obtainquantitative results a two-dimensional analysis is needed.The phenomenon of sidegating recovery under conditions of large drain voltage has beendiscussed by several authors, who attributed it to hole injection from the channel due to an avalancheeffect[72, 73]. In our experiments this phenomenon occurred only upon applying a very high drainvoltage and was not correlated with the appearance of an excess gate current. We suggest that it wasdue to inhibition of the gate-sidegate communication: for large enough drain voltages, the field inthe gate-source region increases and prevents from most of the holes reaching the substrate.Our analysis does not take into account the non-linear velocity-field relationship. The resultspresented in this paper show that in the presence of hole injection the electric field can only behigh only over a very narrow region and in the remaining portions of the structure it is below itsohmic value. Consequently the electron velocity can reach saturation only in the vicinity of thehole-injecting electrode, where it would probably result in an even higher voltage drop in this region.An increase in the voltage drop indicates that a larger portion of the sidegate voltage will be in thevicinity of the channel thus enhancing sidegating.Gunn effect (instabilities due to intervalley electron transfer) has been invoked to explainsidegating and oscillations in GaAs MESFETs[74]. The present work indicates that because ofthe very low field throughout almost the entire structure in the presence of hole injection, intervalleyelectron transfer is unlikely to occur. The experiments on semiconductors with traps showed a greatlyreduced region of negative mobility in I-V characteristics [75, 76] and, therefore, even at higher fieldsit is difficult to explain sidegating in terms of the Gunn effect.As has been already pointed out Lee etal. [12] suggested a mechanism of a charge transport in SIGaAs in sidegating effect. Their traps-filled-limit model was based on the high-level injection theoryof Lampert and Mark[7]. This model qualitatively explains sidegating, but has some difficulties inexplaining it quantitatively [8]. Lampert theory is based on carrier transport by drift only. In contrast,under conditions of low-level injection both the diffusion and drift components of the current areimportant. Low-level and high-level analyses are just two extremes of the injection phenomenon into47semiconductor with traps; namely its small and large-signal analyses. Another important differencebetween the above two analyses is that they treat different geometries: while the Lampert theoryis applicable for long structures, our analysis has been applied to configuration of two relativelyclosely-spaced contacts, which is a typical case for integrated circuits. Still, both of the theories areimportant as mentioned before: the results of the small-signal analysis should be useful for circuitdesigners, while large-signal analysis is useful for predicting abrupt variations in I-V characteristics.In conclusion, sidegating in GaAs MESFETs was investigated using analytical techniques. One-dimensional expressions for carrier concentration, field, and potential profiles in a SI substrate wereobtained without some of the assumptions, which are usually made in analytic approaches, suchas local space-charge neutrality, neglect of recombination, and diffusion or drift component of thecurrent. A variable boundary condition on the channel side of the structure allowed investigationof injection into a SI substrate. Although only one-dimensional the present analysis provides newinsight into device physics. In the presence of hole injection it was shown that:1. The local space-charge neutrality is not preserved.2. Both diffusion and drift component currents are important in transport in short SI GaAs structures.3. The Gunn effect is unlikely to occur in short structures.The analysis was performed on a configuration of two closely-spaced contacts, but the results,such as an appearance of the field overshoot in the presence of hole injection, are similar to thoseobtained for longer structures [41]. Therefore, the low-injection analysis may explain the long-rangesidegating.In our physical model of sidegating hole injection from the gate plays a major role and this isconsistent with our experimental observations (see Fig. 3.17), which showed that the gate current isa better indicator of sidegating than the sidegate current.3.3 Evaluation of hole injectionWhen sidegating occurs the negative sidegate voltage progressively depletes the channel andreduces its electron concentration. Consequently, the potential barrier for holes is reduced and more48holes are injected into the channel. Since the channel of low pinch-off ion-implanted MESFETsis very thin, few holes are lost due to recombination in neutral channel, and most of them reachthe substrate. Furthermore, due to the impurity profile of ion-implanted devices there is a built-in electric field, which assists holes to move into a substrate. The hole current through the gatemay exceed the electron current in the gate-channel-SI-sidegate structure. To show this consider theenergy band diagram in Fig. 3.18. Upon applying a negative bias to a sidegate the depletion edgeof the channel-substrate junction is pushed into the channel. When two depletion regions mergethe electron barrier is reduced allowing more electrons to be injected into the gate. The number ofavailable electrons, however, is limited by their supply from the sidegate determined by the resistanceof a SI region. Thus the maximum electron current can be estimated from the electron ohmic currentdensity through a SI substrate:Je = qneVa/L (3.41)where Va is the applied gate-sidegate voltage, and L is the distance between gate and sidegate. Onthe other hand we can find the hole current from the thennionic emission theory [601, which isapplicable here due to a very thin Schottky depletion region. Thus the maximum hole current densityis given by:Jpm = A;T2e_01T (3.42)where is the hole barrier height [77] and A is the effective Richardson constant for holes. For= 0.6eV, e = 107cm3,p,, = 4000cm2/Vsec, L = 20im and T’ 3V the hole and electroncurrents are 5.69 x iO— A/cm2, and 9.6 x 106A/cm2 respectively. Clearly the maximum holecurrent will strongly depend on the Fermi level at the surface of the channel. For instance, for= 0.55eV we obtain Jpm = 3.9 x 103A/cm2.In low pinch-off MESFETs the distance between the edges of a Schottky gate depletion region anda channel-substrate junction is normally in the range of Debye length. So even for a small decrease inthe thickness of the undepleted channel the channel electron concentration deviates drastically fromits equilibrium value [271. The maximum electron concentration in the channel can be expressed49as [781:no =n1exp(Uo) (3.43)withUo = sinh1(ND/2n){1 — O.5exp[—(d.— WG — (3.44)where LD is defined in (3.27), n, is intrinsic carrier concentration, d is the channel thickness, WG isthe thickness of a Schottky gate depletion region, and Wj is the extension of the channel-substratejunction into the channel. The thermionic emission hole current density can be expressed in temisof the maximum electron concentration in the channel:J8 = A;T2e_(P+vD_)/kT = A;T2Ne_E9/kT/,10 (3.45)where N is the effective conduction band density of states in the conduction band, Eg is the energyband-gap, VD is the built-in potential of the Schottky contact [771, and Vas is the applied voltageon a Schottky contact. Using eqn. (3.43)-(3.45) it is possible to calculate the hole current from thegate into the substrate as a function of a sidegate voltage by determining wj from the sidegatingexperiment. Our calculations of the hole current as a function of wj reveal that the hole currentdensity does increase significantly when Wj is approaching d — wG, but it is still much smaller thanthe electron ohmic current density. Upon increasing the negative sidegate voltage the condition ofchannel punch-through is achieved. With further increase in voltage the hole current increases rapidlyuntil reaching its maximum value, given by (3.42). Our analysis is confirmed by the measurementsof the gate current in MESFETs that exhibited a gradual decrease in the drain current upon applyinga negative sidegate voltage. The measurements, which are shown in Fig. 3.27, indicate that as thedrain current is reduced with a sidegate voltage, the gate and sidegate current increase and abovearound — 8V they coincide. This indicates that as the channel is progressively depleted, more holesare injected from the gate, increasing the gate current, and more of these holes reach the substrate,where they recombine with the electrons coming from the sidegate. As shown in Fig. 3.28. the gatecurrent and the corresponding sidegate current depend only weakly on the gate bias. This may seemsurprising because the gate bias alters the thickness of the undepleted channel and therefore should501 0-310-6—S•e.— 10-v -z10-s -10-s - *00* *0 ***Oo ***00 ******10-10 00000 ******** -00 0000o8Q10-11 - 0 0 -10—12 I I I I I I-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0SIDEGATE VOLTAGE (V)Figure 3.27: Drain (solid line), gate (circles), and sidegate (asterisks) currents vs. sidegatevoltage (VD = 2V, VG = OV). The gate cia-rent changes its polarity at about —3V.The gate and sidegate currents coincide at the voltages more negative than —8V.affect the voltage, at which punch-through condition occurs. However, it is probably due to thetwo-dimensional nature of hole injection through the channel, which involves both the gate-sidegateand drain-source interaction. The hole injection is strongest in the region where the drain-sourceelectric field is weakest, namely, between gate and source: By applying more negative gate bias thehole injection from the gate is enhanced, but the electric field in the gate-source region increases aswell, resulting in less holes being able to get through the channel. Thus these two effects balanceeach other resulting in the gate current rise occurring approximately at the same sidegate voltage.In the above section we have proposed a sidegating model based on hole injection from thegate. The purpose of the following section is to report experimental results [421 which confirm theparticipation of hole injection in sidegating. So far, experimental observation of the participation of51180120FzU 6000 -5 -10 -15SIDEGATE VOLTAGE (V)(a)600.200H0180 600120 40060 200C/)SIDEGATE VOLTAGE (V)(b)Figure 3.28: Channel punch-through in low pinch-off GaAs MESFETs (VD = 2V, VG : OV to — O.2V):(a) gate current increases rapidly when a MESFET is nearly pinched off as a resultof applying a negative sidegate voltage. (b) the corresponding sidegate current.holes in the sidegating effect has been reported only when large drain voltages were applied, and undersuch biasing conditions the holes are believed to be generated by impact ionization in the channel,0 -5 -10 -1552from where they can be injected into the SI substrate[72, 79, 73]. We report hole injection fromthe Schotiky gate when no drain voltage is applied. Hole injection from the Schottky metal on a SIsubstrate has been reported previously [61]. In contrast, we focus on hole injection from the Schottkymetal on the doped channel and show that it can be significant for a large negative sidegate voltage.Minority carrier injection in epitaxial Schottky diodes increases with current under conditions ofhigh forward bias[54]. This is related to an increase in the electric field in the quasi-neutral regionof the diode. However, since the voltage drop across this region is very small in practical situations,the injection of minority carriers is negligible. The situation is very different in the Schottky gates ofMESFETs fabricated by shallow ion implantation into SI GaAs substrates, illustrated by a schematicband diagram shown in Fig. 3.29(a). The structure consists of two closely spaced depletion regionswhich are associated with the Schottky barrier and the channel-substrate interface. Since the Fermilevel is pinned at the channel surface at about 0.8eV from the conduction band [61], there is aninversion layer beneath the gate, that is, at the surface the number of holes exceeds the number ofelectrons. Under forward-bias conditions the holes are injected from the gate into the channel andare subject to an assisting field due to a steep impurity profile. On applying a negative voltage tothe substrate, only a small portion of the applied voltage drops across the Schottky barrier, most isabsorbed at the channel-substrate barrier and in the SI region. As a result, the two depletion regionsstart to merge, and the potential barrier for holes starts to decrease, causing more holes to be injectedinto the substrate, as shown in Fig. 3.29(b). Manifacier and Henisch have shown that the holeinjection into a SI substrate may result in a very large electric field overshoot in the vicinity of thechannel [411. This will cause an even higher voltage drop in the channel-substrate depletion region,consequently extending it into the channel and lowering further the hole injection barrier[80]. Thisprocess is self-regenerating. At high enough applied voltages it will result in the punch-through ofthe channel and a rapid increase in the gate current.To test the model, measurements were performed on a structure consisting of two low-pinch-offMESFETs shown in Fig. 3.30. The MESFETs were fabricated in a commercial foundry using directn and n+ Si ion implantation into undoped liquid encapsulated Czochralski GaAs substrates. Thechannel width, gate length, gate-source and gate-drain spacings were 4 ,um, 1im, 2 m and 2 ,um,53GATEINVERSIONLAYER CHANNELP NDistanceFigure 3.29: Hole injection and a corresponding energy-band diagram for a (a) quasi-neutralMESFET, (b) MESFET with a large negative sidegate voltage applied. The combination of theinversion layer, n-channel and semi-insulating substrate creates a P-N-P looks like structure.respectively. The MESFETs had a threshold voltage of about —0.7 V and we estimated the channelthickness to be0.15 pin and the maximum election concentration in the channel to be 1017 cm3.The gate and ohmic contacts of device 2, which were slightly forward-biased, and a negatively biasedSUBSTRATEPElectronEnergyJp(a)EcEFEvEcEV‘p.EF—(b)54C4I I I IDEVICE 123 urn 2 urnBI I I IDEVICE 2SEMI-INSULATING SUBSTRATE(a)(b)Figure 3.30: (a) Cross section of the investigated three-terminal structure consisting of two MESFETs.Using a Schottky (gate) and an ohmic contact (source/drain) of one MESFET together with anohmic contact of the other MESFET, the structure acts as a surface-barrier transistor with a gateoperating as an emitter. (b) An equivalent bipolar transistor structure with a long collector region.ohmic contact of device 1 were used to simulate the interaction between MESFETs. Under theseconditions this three-terminal structure functions as a surface-barrier transistor [81, 55] that featureshole injection based on the punch-through of the channel as a result of applying a negative collector(sidegate) voltage. Since the channel width is much smaller than the emitter-base distance, mostof the injected holes are collected by the substrate. Because of the large emitter-collector distance,the injected holes will recombine with the electrons coming from the collector terminal. Thus thecurrent measured at the collector contact is roughly the hole current of the Schottky diode. A moreE(GATE)C(SIDEGATE)lB(SOURCE)55x101°FC.)Figure 3.31: Measured currents vs. collector voltage characteristics. The solid line corisponds to theemitter (gate) current JE and the dashed line to the collector (sidegate) current Ic. The leakage current IL(designated by dots) is the current between base and collector when the emitter is floating.accurate estimate of the hole current is obtained by subtracting the base-collector leakage currentfrom the measured collector current. The measured currents are presented in Fig. 3.31. Thehole injection ratio, which is the ratio of the hole-to-emitter current, is shown in Fig. 3.32 as afunction of collector bias and emitter-base bias as a parameter. The hole injection is negligible forcollector bias between zero and— 1.5 V, but increases significantly for more negative voltages, ingood agreement with the model.-5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0COLLECTOR VOLTAGE (V)560c)COLLECTOR VOLTAGE (V)0Figure 3.32: Calculated hole injection ratio, defined as (Ic — IL)/IE, for the emitter-base bias of0.1 V (solid line) and 0.2 V (dashed line). ‘E”C and ‘L are defined in caption of Fig. 3.31.-5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5573.4 High-level double carrier injection in the sidegating effect3.4.1 Introduction and ModelWe have already noted that Lee et at. [12] found a correlation between substrate currentand sidegating and explained it by the traps-filled-limit model (TFL) [20]. According to Lee et at.[12] electron injection from the sidegate to the MESFET channel-substrate interface is initiatedat a certain threshold voltage, determined by the sum of sidegate and drain voltages. However,TFL model predicts threshold voltages larger than normally observed [8, 9]. Also, some sidegatingexperiments have been reported, where no dependence on drain voltage was found [8]. Furthennore,the oscillations which have been observed by several researchers (e.g. [741) and the recently reportedhysteresis in the sidegate current [15] are difficult to explain in terms of single carrier space-charge-limited conduction.In the above studies of sidegating the interaction between gate and sidegate has not beenconsidered, and measurements of the gate current were not reported. It has been established thatin Schottky barriers consisting of metal on n-type doped semiconductor under forward bias minoritycarriers can be injected from the metal into the semiconductor [82], although there is some controversyregarding the magnitude of hole injection in Schottky diodes [59]. Hole injection from positivelybiased metal pads into the semi-insulating GaAs substrates was discussed by Wager and McCamant[61]. Goto et at. [83] analyzed the sidegating effect, based on the numerical simulation of a structurethat included Schottky metal on the SI substrate, and explained it in terms of hole injection from thegate. Their results did not show hysteresis in I-V characteristics and consequently in their analyticalmodel they did not try to explain the instabilities often observed in sidegating effect. Recently aseries of measurements by Liu et at. [58] showed that a small portion of the gate that overlaps then-channel on to the SI substrate can play an important role in the sidegating effect.Our physical model is based on experimental observations of strong dependence of the gatecurrent on the sidegate voltage, and new results, which relate the gate current jumps to hysteresisin test devices [43]. We propose that these phenomena originate from double injection into the SI58substrate. We suggest that the gate, when biased positively with respect to the sidegate, is a majorsource of hole injection frito the SI substrate.At low sidegate voltages low-level double injection creates a non-linear potential profile across theSI substrate, resulting in a significant portion of the sidegate voltage being applied on the channel-substrate junction.For a high enough sidegate voltage the transit time of holes from the gate to the sidegateacross a SI substrate becomes less than their lifetime. The holes reach the vicinity of the electroninjecting sidegate, compensate the negative space charge formed there by the trapped electrons,and consequently cause a steep rise in the sidegate and gate currents. This is a high-level doubleinjection mechanism, which is known to produce a negative resistance in I-V characteristics oftenexhibited through hysteresis and oscillations [20, 84]. Reduction of the space charge in the vicinityof sidegate results in many more electrons being injected into the channel-substrate interface. Theinjected electron charge is compensated by further extension of the depletion layer into the channel,resulting in a sharp reduction of the drain current. Our experimental results confirm the importanceof hole injection as proposed by Goto et at. [83], but our model suggests a new and more generalinterpretation of their results.3.4.2 ExperimentsWe now report some new experiments which indicate double injection in the sidegating effect.Low pinch-off (threshold voltage — O.7V) depletion mode ion-implanted GaAs MESFETs fabricatedat a commercial foundry were used with gate length 1 pm and width 4 pm. The gate-source and andgate-drain spacings were both 2 pm. The sidegate was 8pm from the source and 23 pm from thegate. The layout of the test structure is shown in Fig. 3.33. An HP 4145A semiconductor parameteranalyzer was used to obtain I-V characteristics at room temperature in the dark.Fig. 3.34 shows MESFET drain, gate, and sidegate currents versus sidegate voltage. The drainvoltage was 2V and the gate was grounded. The drain current gradually decreased starting from asidegate voltage of -3V. Jumps in the currents occurred at a sidegate voltage of about -6V. Correlationbetween gate and sidegate currents was apparent not only in that jumps in each occurred at the same59Figure 3.33: Schematic layout of the mirror-image structure of two MESFETs that were usedin the sidegating measurements. The channel width, gate length, gate-source and gate-drainspacings were 4 pm, 1 pm, 2 pm and 2 pm respectively. The dotted area is the active layer areaof the MESFETs. When one of the MESFETs was biased, the other’s ohmic contact servedas a sidegate. The sidegate was 8 pm from the source and 23 pm from the gate.sidegate voltage, but also in that they then exhibited the same magnitude. Changes in drain voltages(VD : 0.5 — 4V) had no effect on the sharp threshold voltage.The drain current as a function of sidegate voltage for a MESFET with the gate floating and thedrain voltages from 1 to 5V is presented in Fig. 3.35. At drain voltages below 3V a soft thresholdbehavior was exhibited with no evident current jumps. Also no jumps were observed in the sidegatecurrent (not shown in Fig. 3.35). However, with increasing drain voltage a jump in the drain currentappeared, which corresponded to the jump in the sidegate current.The current between the grounded gate and the biased sidegate as a function of a negative sidegatepotential, with the remaining electrodes floating, is shown in Fig. 3.36. This figure also showsMESFET current-voltage characteristics when the source and drain are biased. Both the gate anddrain currents exhibited hysteresis with the same two threshold voltages at about -5V and -6V. Thehysteresis behavior described here was reproducible when long integration time and small voltage60z4IzwcxD()wI—4CD4zDC-)wI.— “4CDw(I)10Figure 3.34: Drain, gate and sidegate currents as a function of sidegate voltage (VD = 2V, VG = OV).150I—Z 100Li‘-‘500iO—8101010108100 —2SIDE GATE—4 —6VOLTAGE (V)614003300zLIJD200Uz410000 —2 —4 —6SIDEGATE VOLTAGE (V)Figure 3.35: Drain current versus sidegate voltage for a MESFET with a floating gate (VD : 1 — 5V).steps were used in the measurements. For the sidegate positively biased with respect to the gateneither current jump nor hysteresis were observed. Note that Li et at. have shown that the hysteresisin sidegating is an artifact of the voltage-controlled measurement and in the current-controlled casethe current-voltage characteristics exhibit negative resistance [15]. We, however, haVe performedour measurements by applying constant sidegate voltages, because these measurements imitate thereal-life environment in the GaAs integrated circuits, in which the worst-case sidegating is determinedby the negative voltage supply (which ideally is a supplier of unlimited current).3.4.3 Analysis and DiscussionDouble injection into a semiconductor with traps is known to produce a negative resistanceregime [20, 84], which exhibits current jumps, oscillations and hysteresis as found in sidegating62108150100 i0 F—C.) c_)z50 10100 10h1-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7SIDEGATE VOLTAGE (V)Figure 3.36: Hysteresis in the drain current (VD = 2V, VG = OV), and in the gate-sidegatecurrent (source and drain are floating). The solid line represents a decreasing (morenegative) sidegate voltage, while the dotted line represents the opposite direction.experiments. The following observations in our experiments, even if separately they do not provethe double injection mechanism, together provide strong evidence for it.I. Sidegate and gate currents were found to be equal after a threshold sidegate voltage was reached.This indicates direct communication between gate and sidegate.2. Hysteresis and current jumps in the gate-sidegate structure did not appear upon applying a positivesidegate voltage, but only under forward bias conditions (negative sidegate voltage), for whichhole injection from the Schottky gate is possible [821.3. Drain current-voltage characteristics exhibited hysteresis with threshold voltages correspondingto the ones observed in a gate-sidegate structure. Thus MESFET characteristics are directlyrelated to the transport mechanism between gate and sidegate.0634. Hole injection is not expected in MESFETs with a floating gate operating at low drain voltagesand, consistently, no jumps in the drain or sidegate currents were observed in our experimentunder such biasing conditions as shown in Fig. 3.35.However, for larger drain voltages Fig. 3.35 shows jumps in the drain current accompanied byjumps in the sidegate current. It is possible that the gate obtains an intermediate value between drainand source voltages, which cause it to be forward-biased. In this case there is no difference betweenthese results and those shown in Fig. 3.34. However, the prebreakdown impact ionization effects,observed by Tsironis [85] in GaAs MESFETs and epitaxial layers for drain voltages higher than 4-5volts, also may explain our observations. Thus, the prebreakdown impact ionization generates pairsof holes and electrons in the channel. Because of the energy barrier at the channel-substrate interfaceonly high-energy electrons can be injected into the SI substrate. By contrast, holes have an assistingfield at the interface and consequently are attracted by the negatively biased sidegate and participatein the double injection process causing the current jump.Fig. 3.34 shows that soft and sharp gate current reduction corresponds to soft and sharp anddrain current reduction with a threshold at -3V and -6V respectively. It is difficult to explain thesharp current reduction by electron injection from the sidegate for a drain-sidegate distance of 26km,a drain voltage of 2V and a sidegate voltage of only -6V. For instance, a recent numerical analysis ofn-SI-n structures indicates that electron current increases significantly at about 1OV applied on aS mone-dimensional structure [56]. Even higher threshold voltages were obtained for two-dimensionalstructures. Furthermore, as already mentioned in subsection 3.4.2, the sharp threshold voltage didnot change due to variations in a drain voltage. This is not expected from the TFL model, whichpredicts a decrease in the sidegate threshold voltage with increasing drain voltage.Fig. 3.36 indicates that the drain current reduction is caused by the gate-source interaction.The current jumps and hysteresis in gate-sidegate structure were observed at an applied field of2.5kV/cm, which is too small to initiate impact ionization, that can also produce hysteresis in I-Vcharacteristics [15]. Furthermore, Fig. 3.34 shows clearly that the gate current is a strong functionof sidegate voltage. Even before the current jump, a sidegate voltage of -3V is enough to reversethe gate current polarity, which indicates abnormal MESFET operation. If we consider a MESFET64EcEFEvDistanceFigure 3.37: Schematic energy-band diagram of a MESFET gate on a SI substrate.on a SI substrate as a combination of three Schottky diodes, then the experiments show that forhigh enough sidegate voltage the gate-sidegate diode is dominant. We, therefore, concentrate on thegate-sidegate interaction.As shown in Fig. 3.33 there is a part of Schottky metallization that is on a SI substrate. Fig.3.37 depicts the energy levels in equilibrium of a gate on a SI substrate. The Fermi level is pinnedat about 0.8 eV [601 from the conduction band and as a result an inversion layer is formed beneaththe gate. The thickness of the Schottky depletion region is given by [861:‘Wdep /2cVD/qNEL2 (3.46)where VD is a Schottky built-in potential. For VD = 0.15eV and IEL2 = 106cm3we obtainWdep O.15im. If a negative bias is applied on the sidegate the gate becomes forward biased. Sincethe Schottky depletion region is thin we can discuss the transport across the Schotiky contact in termsof thermionic emission theory [601. Under these conditions the hole injection from the metal wasshown largely to exceed the electron injection [61]. Thus, the gate-SI-sidegate structure acts as aP-I-N diode with a heavily compensated intrinsic region.For low sidegate voltages we deal with low-level double injection between gate and sidegate.Under these conditions the potential distribution across a SI substrate can be calculated using eqn.(3.38). Fig. 3.25 shows the results of this calculation which indicate that a significant portion of theEnergyGATE SI GaAs65voltage across a SI substrate is dropped in the vicinity of the hole-injecting boundary. This potentialprofile is a result of the dipole, consisting of positive and negative excess trapped carriers, whichis formed in the close neighborhood to the hole-injecting interface [80]. Three major contributorsto the formation of the dipole are high trap densities, high ratio of electron to hole mobility, andlow lifetime in SI GaAs [41]. When only a small portion of the applied gate-sidegate voltage isdropped across a Schottky depletion region, the results in Fig. 3.25 show that in the presence of holeinjection a significant portion of the applied voltage is dropped across the channel-substrate interface.A gradual increase in the applied negative voltage will result, consequently, in a gradual decrease inthe drain current as shown in Fig. 3.34 for low sidegate voltages.During the double low-level injection a negative space-charge region is formed in the vicinityof sidegate by the electrons trapped in deep EL2 levels. For higher sidegate voltages the transit timeof holes across a SI substrate becomes comparable to their lifetime. They reach the vicinity of asidegate electrode and reduce the negative space-charge. As a result many more electrons are injectedinto the substrate and reach the channel-substrate depletion region. The injected negative charge iscompensated by the depletion of the channel, resulting in a strong decrease in the drain current.During the injection process some holes are captured by the recombination centers. As a resulthole lifetime increases and consequently a smaller voltage is needed to bring holes to the sidegateelectrode. This is the source of the appearance of a negative resistance in double injection processaccording to Lampert’s theory [20]. In our experiments the devices that exhibited sharp sidegating alsoexhibited hysteresis. We have investigated an appearance of hysteresis in the gate-sidegate structures.The source and drain were floating, the sidegate was grounded, and the gate was positively biased.The negative resistance regime started typically between 5 to 6V and was accompanied by a strongincrease in the current as shown in Fig. 3.38. The location of the second threshold varied from deviceto device over the range of 6 to 1 8V. Neither hysteresis, nor current jumps were observed in gatesidegate structures when the gate was negatively biased with respect to the sidegate. According toLampert’s theory [20] the current increase in the negative resistance regime should be approximatelygiven by the ratio of the recombination center density to the equilibrium free electron concentration.For a recombination center density of 105cm3and the electron concentration of 107cm3 in SI66GaAs we should expect an abrupt increase of eight orders of magnitude in the current. But in ourexperiments we observed an increase of a maximum of five orders of magnitude in the current. Ourresults are in agreement with the studies of GaAs P — I — N diodes reported by Weiser and Levitt[87], and Seiway and Nicolle [88]. They found the appearance of a negative resistance at voltagesand currents smaller than those predicted by the Lampert [201 or Ashley-Milnes [84] theories andexplained it in terms of an optical feedback mechanism suggested in GaAs by Dumke [89, 84].Additional mechanisms of double injection such as filament formation were proposed for GaAs[84]. According to Dumke’s model under increasing external illumination the negative resistanceshould decrease and disappear. We performed this experiment on our gate-sidegate structures and theresults, which confirm Dumke’s theory, are shown in Fig. 3.38. Nevertheless, the threshold voltagefor the end of a negative resistance regime in double injection process according to the Lampert’sone-dimensional model for an insulator with length L [20]:Vth =L2/21.tr; (3.47)are in the range normally observed, e.g., taking L 23iim, = 320cm/Vsec [90], and a typicalhole lifetime in high-resistivity GaAs r = lnsec [91] we obtain a threshold voltage of 8.3V.Geometrical effects in sidegating become very important when holes are injected from only asmall portion of the gate that is on a SI substrate. In this case the double injection process occurs onlybeneath part of the channel, as visualized in Fig. 3.39. Thus the sidegating effect can be analyzedusing an equivalent circuit consisting of two MESFETs in parallel. One of them will be cut off underconditions of strong double injection, while the other is not influenced by it. This may explain whythe MESFET in Fig. 3.34 was not completely cut off after a jump in the gate current had occurred.Not all gate-sidegate structures on the same wafer exhibited hysteresis. We suggest that thisis due to substrate inhomogeneity involving variations in the concentration of the recombinationcenters either present in the as prepared wafer or process-induced, for example as a result of ionimplantation. In addition, double injection is expected to be strongly dependent on the thickness ofthe oxide layer, which is normally present between a gate and a SI substrate. The non-uniformity ofthe oxide layer across the substrate can result in different sidegating behavior for devices on the same6710-s10-aio-10-6Q 1010-s10-sC10-1010-1110-12Figure 3.38: Hysteresis in the gate-sidegate structures under increasing illumination (VSG OV,drain and source are floating). The solid line corresponds to the data obtained in the dark,dashed line corresponds to the data obtained with room lights, and the open circles correspond tothe data obtained under microscope lamp illumination. Results obtained in the dark or withroom lights show hysteresis, while those obtained under direct illumination show no hysteresis.wafer. Therefore, the gate formation processing steps, particularly oxide removal before depositinga Schottky metal, can be important in determining sidegating. In this case, the sidegating effect canbe different from one process run to another, even if identical substrates are used.Since the negative resistance in gate-sidegate structures may appear at sidegate voltages, forwhich a MESFET is already cut off, it may easily be overlooked. But the hole injection from thegate on a SI substrate is still present, resulting in a soft, but not necessarily a weak, sidegating effect.In conclusion, double injection should be considered in investigating sidegating associated with asharp threshold behavior. We propose a physical model, which accounts for abrupt current variations0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20SCHOTrKY GATE VOLTAGE (V)68GATEFigure 3.39: Schematic top view of the area (designated by gray pattern)that is affected by hole injection from the gate on a SI substrate.and hysteresis in sidegating. Our measurements of hysteresis are in general agreement with Dumke’smodel for double injection in GaAs. The predominant mechanism of double injection, however, isprobably to be determined by device geometry and material properties. The role of hole injectionin enhancing soft sidegating effect was discussed through the analytical expression for the potentialdistribution across a SI substrate. Our model accounts for sidegating light sensitivity [13] becausephoto-generated hole-electron pairs will participate in the double injection process: the generatedholes will be attracted to the negatively biased sidegate through a SI substrate, in a similar wayof attracting holes generated by a prebreakdown impact ionization. It was shown that a channelpunch-through may result in significant hole injection from the gate. Our analysis of hole injectiondoes not take into account the difference in the gate and sidegate areas, which can be significant.Hole injection for small-area Schottky diodes was shown by numerical analysis to be much higherthan that for the large contact devices [92]. More accurate treatment will require two-dimensionalSIDEGATE69analysis, which is beyond the present scope of this work. Our results show the need to include gatecurrent measurements in investigating the sidegating.3.5 SummaryDouble injection into the SI GaAs substrate was investigated as a mechanism of sidegating inGaAs MESFETs. We propose a physical model for sidegating based on a series of measurements,which show change of gate current with sidegate voltage and correlation between abrupt variations indrain, gate and sidegate currents and instabilities in test devices. An analytical treatment of carrier,field, and potential distribution in a SI substrate under conditions of low-level injection shows that anelectric field overshoot may develop in the vicinity of the MESFET when hole injection occurs. Thisresults in a large portion of the applied voltage being dropped across the channel-substrate interfaceand, consequently, in sidegating. Sharp sidegating, exhibited through an abrupt decrease of the draincurrent, is explained by high-level double injection.Measurements of currents in gate-source-sidegate structures, when the gate is slightly forward-biased and the sidegate is negatively biased with respect to the source, showed that significant holeinjection from the gate occurs for large sidegate voltages. This is in agreement with a proposedmodel, in which the presence of an inversion layer under the Schottky gate due to the pinning of theFermi level at the channel surface causes hole injection into the channel when the gate is positivelybiased with respect to the sidegate. Upon increasing negative sidegate voltage the substrate-channeldepletion region is expanded, and consequently, the neural region of the channel is shrunk. Thisresults in more holes being injected into the substrate from the gate.70Chapter 4Low-frequency transport in semi-insulating GaAs4.1 IntroductionIn silicon the presence of deep levels was shown to introduce low-frequency dependence intothe capacitance and conductance of a p-n or metal-semiconductor junction [29, 51, 69, 44]. It isalso well known that many of the parameters of GaAs MESFETs on SI substrates exhibit low-frequency-dependent behavior. While the frequency dependence of some of the parameters (e.g.transconductance) has usually been attributed to the surface states [481, it has been pointed outby many researchers, e.g. [93], that the frequency dependence of the output conductance is dueto the properties of the SI substrate. The analysis of transport in SI GaAs in the frequencydomain is therefore vital for understanding many of the properties of GaAs MESFETs at low-frequencies. Furthermore, this analysis contributes to the understanding of crosstalk between twoadjacent MESFETs on a SI substrate [40, 94].4.2 Analysis and resultsWe assume that both deep donors and deep acceptors are present in the SI GaAs one-dimensionalstructure confined between two contacts: contact 2 is an ohmic contact which can inject only electrons,while contact 1 is a Schottky contact which may inject holes and is assigned a variable injection ratio(j=0 corresponds to zero hole injection, and =1 to zero electron injection). The schematicequilibrium band diagram of the structure is depicted in Fig. 4.40. In Chapter 3 we reportedan analytical study of the DC charge, field and potential distribution in such structures [801. Ouranalysis was based on the investigation of minority-carrier injection into semiconductors with trapsby Manifacier and Henisch [64, 41]. We assume that the deep levels in the structure do not interactand thus separate rate equations can be written for each level. If we restrict the magnitude of excesscharge densities to small variations around their equilibrium values then the rate equation for a single71CONTACT 1 CONTACT 2Electron CEnergy Semi-insulating GaAsfl+0 Distance LFigure 4.40: Schematic equilibrium band diagram of the semi-insulating structure ofa length L between zero-field points in the vicinity of N+ and Schottky contacts.deep level is given by [29]:döN 6N( + e + CpPe + e) + n1V — öPIVtc (4.48)where N is the density of a deep level, e, e are the emission rates of a deep level for electronsand holes,c, c, are the capture probabilities of a deep level for electrons and holes, and e Pe arethe equilibrium electron and hole concentrations, n1 is the electron density if the Fermi level wereat the energy level of the deep level. We decompose the excess free electron, free hole and trappedelectron densities respectively into AC and DC components to yield:n(x) = bnd(x) + ön(x)eWf (4.49)öp(x) = bPdc(X) + 6pac(x)eLi, (4.50)öNt(x) = 6N(x) + JV(x)&wt. (4.51)72Substituting (4.49)-(4.51) into (4.48) to obtain:6N(x) = /36ac() — ae5Pac(x) (4.52)withD ATT TT (453)rD(1+jwr) r(1+jwr)nD A—TT TT (4.54)rD(1+jwr)pwhere indexes D and A designate deep donors and deep acceptors respectively,1/T’4 CAfle + e + CpDAPe + el)A (4.55)D,A D,A I DA= cDAN fli /ifle + i ), (4.56)l/r1)A = CpNPAfle/(ne + DA) (4.57)For w = 0 a and yield DC solutions [801 as expected. The linearized [63] time-dependentcontinuity equations for electrons and holes, and Poisson’s equation can be written as:a2iv 8E A F) = qL (4.58)8X2 kTr____OE Ab 6F) = qL 06P (4.59)aX2 _Fe_i+p(Fe5N+ ikTôtdE 1dX — 1 + Fe[(1 + c46F — (1 + 3)6N] (4.60)with LD =5,/[kT/q2(n + pe)j, A = e/qpnr(n + Pe), where a and /3 are defined in (4.53)and (4.43), q is the magnitude of the electronic charge, p is the electron mobility, jt,,, is the holemobility, b = r is the lifetime, is the dielectric constant, 5N, 6F and Fe are the excess73free carriers and equilibrium hole concentration respectively, normalized to the equilibrium electronconcentration. The field is normalized to kT/qLD, the potential to kT/q, the current density to,upkT(ne + Pe)/LD and the distance to LD.Substitution of (4.60) into (4.58)-(4.59) and decomposing the excess electron and hole densitiesinto the DC and AC components yields two coupled differential equations, which can be separatedinto DC and AC parts. For frequencies much below the reciprocal of carrier lifetime the AC and DCsets of equations are identical, except in the AC set and /3 are given by (4.53) and (4.54). As aresult excess carrier concentration and potential profiles in the frequency domain are readily obtainedfrom the DC solution for zero field boundary conditions [801:6Nac(X) A[Mc0sh — Rcosh((L — X)/)+Fe cosh (xj) + K cosh ((L — (4.61)/sinh(Lv”)6Pac(X) = A[MPe cosh (X.J) + K cosh((L— X)/)-,/sinh (L/’) (4 62)— Rcosh((L— X’)14/sinh (Lj)v (l+)M—(1+/3)( — A(P6+b)Fe(cosh (X/) — i) + K{cosh ((L — X)./r) — cosh (L/’)] +v”sinh (L/) (4.63)— M(cosh (X’) — 1) — R[cosh ((L — X)) — cosh (L1/)}+ RX},/Z sinh (L/)with v = [Pe(1+)+(1+/3)j/(1+Fe), = An(Fe+b)/(l+Fe), K = — PC,M = (1+/3—Ab)/(1+a—A), R ii(b—M)+M, \ Jac(l+Pe)/b(M+1e). Thenormalized admittance Y is obtained from (4.63):= tlac/Vac(L) = G + jwC. (4.64)The distribution of excess trapped and free carriers calculated from eqs. (4.52), (4.61), (4.62) forthe hole injection ratio i=0 is shown in Figs. 4.41—4.42 for 1Hz and 1MHz correspondingly. Figs.74101010-11010 -- - - — - - — — -- -- — — — — —10-13 --.-10—16 I I I I —0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50MICROMETERSFigure 4.41: Concentration profile of excess trapped and free carriers in the 5Opm long model structure at 1Hzwith no hole injection (j=O). The solid line corresponds to trapped carriers, dashed line to electrons, and dots toholes. The amplitude of AC applied voltage is 5OmV, the equilibrium electron concentration is 7 x 106 cm3,the equilibrium hole concentration is 2 x iO cm3, the electron mobility is 4 x iOcrn2/Vsec, the holemobility is 400cm2/Vsec, and the lifetime is 10 nsec. The deep donor is assumed to be 0.75eV from theconduction band, its density 2 x 1016 cm3,and with the capture cross section of lx 10’3cm2for electrons and1 x 106cm2for holes. The deep acceptor is assumed to be 0.65eV from the conduction band, with density5 x 1015 cm3,and with the capture cross section of 1 x 103cm2for holes and 1 x 106cm2for electrons.4.43—4.44 show the distribution of excess trapped and free carriers calculated for =1 at 1Hz and1MHz correspondingly.Fig. 4.45 shows conductance as a function of frequency evaluated from the real part of eq.(4.64) for =t0 and =1. Fig. 4.46 shows the capacitance as a function of frequency evaluated fromthe imaginary part of eq. (4.64).7510-s10-a10-i10-6CIDU10-1010-11Figure 4.42: Concentration profile of trapped and free excess carriers at 1MHzwith no hole injection. The rest of the parameters are given in Fig. 4.41.4.3 DiscussionThe solution of the transport equations in semiconductors was shown by van Roosbroeckand Casey [95] to be largely dependent on whether dielectric relaxation time is smaller or largerthan carrier lifetime, and, consequently, they classified semiconductors into lifetime or relaxationtypes. In the latter. no local space charge neutrality but rather charge separation through zeronet local recombination is established. When the local space charge neutrality (6IV = .5F) is notassumed the solution of the continuity equations and Poisson’s equation under conditions of low-level injection results in terms containing exp(tXy’) and exp(tXv’). The parametersand can be expressed in terms of a static screening length L3 and an ambipolar diffusionlength LDa [96] respective1y:/ = LD/L8, LD/LDa. Manifacier and Henisch modified0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50MICROMETERS7610 I I1010- •—---N1010 — —. — — —— —— — —10—13 I I I I0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50MICROMETERSFigure 4.43: Concentration profile of trapped and free excess carriers at 1Hz in thepresence of hole injection (ij=1). The rest of the parameters are given in Fig. 4.41.the criterion suggested by van Roosbroeck and Casey [95] and classified semiconductors with trapsinto a lifetime or relaxation case according to the ratio LDa /L3 with a large ratio corresponding tolifetime semiconductors and the small to relaxation semiconductors [96]. When frequencies approach1/TT both excess trapped and free carriers become frequency-dependent through cr and (see eqs.(4.53)-(4.54)). Note that TT does not depend on the trap density and thus the frequency dependenceis not necessarily initiated by the trap with largest density. Indeed, in our case rF is about O.O3sec,while T is about 0.4sec and determines the range of frequencies in which frequency-dependentphenomena appear. Thus at 1Hz LDa is about 3j1m and the absolute value of L3 is about O.08itm.At 1MHz the ambipolar diffusion length is the same but L3 changes significantly and it now stands atabout 34gm. Consequently, SI GaAs exhibits lifetime-like behavior at low, frequencies, but behaves7710-210-610-v10-810-Figure 4.44: Concentration profile of trapped and free excess carriers at 1MHz in thepresence of hole injection (= 1). The rest of the parameters are given in Fig. 4.41.like a relaxation semiconductor at high frequencies. Note that the assumption of local space-chargeneutrality results in the solution containing only exp( tX./). which are frequency-independent atlow frequencies (much below the reciprocal of carrier lifetime).At 1Hz (see Figs. 4.41 and 4.43) the distribution of excess trapped and free carriers in thebulk of SI GaAs is dominated by exp( tXv’Z’) since the diffusion length is much larger than thescreening length. When hole injection occurs (see Fig. 4.43) the electrons move so as to neutralize theinjected holes. The excess hole and electron densities are both positive and have similar exponentialdistribution throughout the structure, which is expected for a lifetime semiconductor. But in contrastto the classical lifetime behavior the local space charge neutrality is not preserved due to the highdensity of the traps in the SI substrate. At 1MHz the charge distribution in the SI structure is becoming1 0-10-i10-s10-100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50MICROMETERS78L)FL)N0zFigure 4.45: Frequency dependence of the conductance of the SI structure calculated using eq. (4.64). Thedashed line corresponds to the conductance in the presence of hole injection (17=1) and the solid line to theconductance when no hole injection occurs (17=0). The rest of the parameters are given in Fig. 4.41.less sensitive to the presence of hole injection (see Figs. 4.42 and 4.44). Since the screening lengthnow is larger than the ambipolar diffusion length when hole injection occurs the effect of the latter onthe carrier distribution appears only within the distance LDa from the hole-injecting contact. Afterthis the material is dominated by the zero net local recombination, which is typical of relaxationsemiconductors, resulting in 6P(X) PeN(X).[4lj. Normally in SI GaAs Fe = Pe/fle < 1 andhence the excess hole and electron densities have opposite signs with the electron density being larger.This is observed in Figs. 4.42 and 4.44. Since the zero field boundary conditions dictate the totalexcess charge neutrality the excess carrier density changes sign around the middle of the structure.Comparison between the carrier profiles at lHzand 1MHz reveals that the ratio of free to trappedcarriers increases with frequency. The charge injected into the SI structure consists of a free and10-810-1 100 101 102 l0 10 iO 106 lO 108 lOFREQUENCY [Hz]791 0- I I10-8 -1 O-10-1010-1 10° 10’ 102 10 10 iO 106 iO 108 10FREQUENCY [Hz]Figure 4.46: Frequency dependence of the capacitance of the SI structure calculated using eq. (4.64). Thedashed line corresponds to the capacitance in the presence of hole injection (ij=l) and the solid line to thecapacitance when no hole injection occurs (=O). The rest of the parameters are given in Fig. 4.41.trapped charge. At 1Hz most of the injected carriers will be trapped which results in low conduction.At high frequencies few injected carriers are immobilized in traps and thus most contribute to thefree carriers resulting in higher conduction.Fig. 4.45 shows that at low frequencies the conductance is reduced in the presence of holeinjection. This is because the injected holes attract the much more mobile electrons to the vicinity ofa hole-injecting contact. At low frequencies the spatial distribution of injected free electrons resemblesthe distribution of free holes, as a result of the attempt to preserve local space charge neutrality. Thisresults in a diffusion of the electrons in the same direction as the holes, thus decreasing the totalcurrent and, consequently, the admittance [411. At higher frequencies this phenomenon is eliminateddue to the fact that the free carrier distribution is detemined by zero local recombination. This80results in the frequency response being insensitive to hole injection. At low frequencies in thepresence of hole injection both the hole and electron traps play an important role in determining thecharge distribution as shown in Chapter 3 and in Ref. [80], and, therefore, their frequency responsesdetermine the frequency dependence of the conductance. The conductance starts to increase at about0.4 Hz, which corresponds to the time constant associated with the hole trap r. This is due tothe fact that a reduction in the hole trap density in the presence of hole injection will increase theconductance [41]. This increase saturates at about 5 Hz, which corresponds to the time constantassociated with the electron trap r. This is because at this frequency the electron trap densitystarts to decrease, and thus compensates the reduction of the hole trap density. In the absence ofhole injection an ohmic conduction will dominate the transport in SI GaAs at low frequencies, andtherefore the frequency response of the deep levels has almost no effect on the conductance as canbe seen in Fig. 4.45. There is another bump on the conductance curves, which occurs between Ikllz and 50 kHz. This frequency range is determined by the frequencies at which 1/31 = Ab and= A. The first frequency can be evaluated to be fi J1/(TAb)2 — 1/(rf)2/2ir, and thesecond one is f2 /1 / (rA)2 — 1 / (r )2/27r. Note that fi, f2 depend on the traps characteristicsthrough r, and TT, and on the mobility and lifetime through A. The conductance increases a feworders of magnitude in the MHz frequency range and then saturates with frequency. The sharpincrease begins at about 0.5 MHz when L1/i1 1, and ceases at about 0.5 0Hz when l/l 1.Clearly, the frequency at which the conductance starts to increase depends not only on the frequencyresponse of the deep levels, but also on the distance between two electrodes: it decreases as thedistance decreases. If hole traps are not included in the simulation, or their density is greatly reducedthe discrepancy in the curves due to hole injection vanishes. If several electron traps are includedin the simulation, their effect on the admittance can be examined in terms of their contribution to/3 which dominates over a because for an electron trap 3 >> a due to the difference in the trapcapture cross-sections for holes and electrons. In the absence of hole injection the trap with thehighest density will normally be dominant at frequencies up to the corresponding 1/TT, after that thedominance is transferred to the trap with the second largest density, which has a higher frequencyresponse, etc. Thus in this case a low-density trap would determine the admittance behavior in a81certain frequency region, if it outlived rest of the higher-density traps. A shalio electron trap willnormally have a higher frequency response than a deep electron trap, if both of them have similarcross sections for electrons. Therefore, inclusion of a shallower electron trap in addition to EL2 willresult in the strong increase of the conductance starting at higher frequencies.Fig. 4.46 depicts the frequency dependence of the capacitance. In the presence of hole injectionthe capacitance starts to decrease at about 5 Hz, which corresponds to r and then saturates at about50 kHz, which corresponds to f2 discussed above. At low frequencies the capacitance increases withhole injection, because the latter forms a trapped charge dipole in the vicinity of the hole-injectingelectrode [80]. As in the case of conductance, not including hole traps in the simulation results in thecurve which is insensitive to hole injection. The resultant shape of the curve is similar to that shownin Fig. 4.46 in the presence of hole injection: namely it exhibits the transition of the capacitancefrom high to low values, which was observed in silicon p-n junctions with deep traps [51, 69]. Asshown in Fig. 4.46 at higher frequencies the capacitance becomes insensitive to hole injection.The results presented in Figs. 4.45 and 4.46 are in good agreement with experimental data forSI GaAs [32], namely small bumps on the conductance curves, that can be seen at low frequenciesand high temperatures and a drastic increase in the conductance at higher frequencies (Fig. 3 in[32]), and a transition of the capacitance from the high to low values (Fig. 4 in [32]). AlthoughPistoulet et at. [32] explained some of the results in terms of their potential fluctuations theory,our work shows that the principal features of their data for SI GaAs can be reproduced by solvingcontinuity and Poisson’s equations in the frequency domain. The validity of our results becomesquestionable at frequencies above the reciprocal of carrier lifetime, which is about 20 MHz in ourcalculations. However, the sharp increase in the conductance was shown to be dependent on thedistance between the electrodes and on the traps characteristics, and it is possible to show that bychanging these parameters the strongly transitional region of the conductance can be shifted to lowerfrequencies in which our analysis is definitely valid.Physically the sharp increase in the conductance in the MHz range occurs probably due to thefact that the SI GaAs transforms in this frequency range from a lifetime semiconductor to a relaxationsemiconductor. Because of zero-field boundary conditions only a diffusion component of the total82current plays a role in determining the conductance. At low frequencies there is quasi-neutrality ofexcess free carriers in the SI GaAs: the excess holes and electrons have similar distribution in space,and, consequently, the hole and electron diffusion currents have opposite signs, decreasing the totalcurrent. With increasing frequencies the shape of the excess free holes and electrons change frombeing similar to a mirror image (with unequal magnitudes). Thus at higher frequencies the diffusioncurrents of holes and electrons sum up, increasing the total current.In conclusion, the free and trapped carrier profiles and the potential profile in SI GaAs were foundto be frequency-dependent. At lower frequencies the material behaves like a l{fe:ime semiconductor,in which electrons are trying to neutralize the injected holes. At higher frequencies charge separationoccurs, typical of relaxation semiconductors. It was shown that the local space charge neutrality isnot preserved in both low and high frequencies. It was found that up to about 100 kHz the admittancecan be represented by an equivalent circuit consisting of a frequency-dependent conductance and amore strongly frequency-dependent capacitance. At low frequencies the conductance decreases, whilethe capacitance increases in the presence of hole injection. At higher frequencies the conductanceincreases by a few orders of magnitude. This increase occurs at lower frequencies for shorterdistances between the contacts. The comparison between the structures with two ohmic contacts andthe structures with one ohmic and one Schottky contact reveals that their admittances differ at verylow frequencies but are very similar at higher frequencies.4.4 Applications to AC sidegatingThe above results indicate an increase of a few orders of magnitude in the SI GaAs conductivityin the kHz-MHz range, depending on the trap parameters and device geometry. The increase in theconductivity will be higher and will be stretched over a wider frequency range by decreasing spacingsbetween devices. Thus, in addition to the DC sidegating effect due to hole injection or space-chargelimited currents in the SI substrate, discussed in Chap. 2, a strong AC sidegating effect may exist.This effect has been overlooked, probably because for GaAs MMIC’s capacitive coupling is assumedas the only way of crosstalk, while for GaAs digital integrated circuits only DC sidegating has beeninvestigated. However, for wide-bandwidth circuits, such as operational amplifiers this effect cannot83be ignored. Furthermore, switching waveforms in digital circuits will normally have higher frequencyhannonics besides DC components, which may affect significantly the crosstalk between devices. In[94] we analyzed AC sidegating in GaAs MESFETs and the calculated results, shown there, whilethey agreed with trends in the experimental data, underestimated the magnitude of the crosstalk.These calculations were based on the parameters evaluated from DC measurements: specifically thesubstrate admittance was evaluated from DC measurements. However, considering the frequencydependence of the admittance of the GaAs SI substrate, presented in this chapter, it is clear that theadmittance might have been a few orders of magnitude larger than its DC value, resulting in a betteragreement of the calculations with the experimental results.In the next Chapter we will see applications of the results derived in this section to modeling ofthe output conductance of GaAs MESFETs on SI substrates.4.5 SummaryBy extending to the frequency domain the analysis of transport in semi-insulating GaAs two-terminal structures, in which one terminal injects only electrons and the other may inject holes,closed form solutions were obtained for AC charge and potential distribution under conditions oflow-level injection. The presence of deep traps results in frequency dependence of both the excessfree and trapped carriers. At low frequencies free electrons move so as to neutralize injected holes,but at higher frequencies charge separation of free carriers through the zero local recombination,typical of relaxation semiconductors, occurs. The corresponding admittance can be represented byan equivalent circuit consisting of a frequency-dependent conductance in parallel with a frequency-dependent capacitance. At very low frequencies the conductance decreases with increasing holeinjection. At higher frequencies it increases and then saturates with frequency. At low frequenciesthe capacitance is a strongly decreasing function of frequency. At higher frequencies the admittancedepends only weakly on the hole injection ratio.Although we focus on semi-insulating GaAs, the equations presented are in a general form,which is applicable to the frequency-dependent transport in a variety of other semiconductors underconditions of low-level injection.84Chapter 5Modeling frequency dependence of the output conductance of GaAs MESFETs5.1 IntroductionThe output conductance of a GaAs MESFET is one of the major parameters, which determinedevice performance, and, consequently, its variation with frequency has attracted the attention ofmany researchers recently [93, 97—99]. In these papers the output admittance is modeled as a singletime constant (zero-pole) function. Although this function can be tailored to fit the variation withfrequency of the output admittance magnitude, the phase change calculated using this approach isgreatly overestimated [93, 45], suggesting a more complicated behavior in the frequency domain.The numerical simulations of the output conductance dispersion provide more understanding of thephenomenon [6, 100], but do not produce an adequate model for circuit simulation.5.2 ModelingThe frequency dispersion of the output conductance, expressed as a drain-lag effect in the timedomain [45], has been widely ascribed to the channel-substrate interface [93, 97, 6, 101]. To illustratethe channel-substrate interaction consider the cross-section of a GaAs MESFET shown in Fig. 5.47.The conductive channel is bounded by the gate and channel-substrate depletion regions. The saturationcurrent in GaAs MESFETs, assuming a constant electron concentration ND, is given in the velocitysaturation region by:I qNDZVS(A — d — h) (5.65)where q is the magnitude of the electron charge, Z is the device width, d is the thickness of the gatedepletion region, h is the extension of the channel-substrate depletion region into the channel, andv is the saturation velocity. Using the abrupt depletion region approximation, we evaluate d and hat the drain edge of the gate (l = + 1, in Fig. 5.47):d = 4/2 - VDST — VG) (5.66)V qN85h — /2E(VBCS + VDST — VSB(ll))NA (5 67—v qND(NA+ND)where c is the permittivity, VBSC is the Schottky gate built-in voltage, VDST and VSB are the channeland substrate voltages respectively at l, VBCS is the built-in voltage of the channel-substrate interface,VG is the gate voltage, and NA is the sum of density of shallow and deep acceptors [70]. We canwrite the drain conductance as:fd__Gd = —qNDZv3 T7 + Ty (5.68)\UVDS CIVDSJThe first term in the brackets is due to the displacement of the velocity saturation point and theconsequent channel widening [1021. The second term represents the modulation of the width of thechannel-substrate depletion layer through the SI substrate by a drain voltage, and can be interpretedas an electrostatic drain feedback effect [1031. Although the potential profile in the channel changesGATESOURCE— i ; DRAIN1sggDISTANCE FROM SOURCEFigure 5.47: Schematic cross section of a MESFET and an AC potential profile across thedrain-substrate-source region. LF corresponds to the profile at low frequencies, HF at high frequencies.n+ n+Semi-insulating GaAs Substrate86with the drain voltage, its variation is much weaker than that in the substrate, and, therefore, weassume that the modulation of h is due to the latter only. As we shall see in the following analysis,the potential distribution across the drain-substrate-source region is frequency-dependent, as shownin Fig 5.47, and, thus, the modulation of the width of the conductive channel, and, consequently, theoutput conductance depend on frequency.Our analysis is restricted to drain voltages which satisfy the condition of low-level injection intothe substrate. In non self-aligned transistors the typical distance between source and drain is about3—6 m, and for such distances two-dimensional numerical analysis of n-SI-n structures predictshigh-level electron injection occurring at voltages larger than 5 V [56]. Abrupt current increasein such structures has been reported previously at lower voltages, but it has been attributed tosurface effects [104]. We, however, consider the SI region under the channel, which is not normallyaffected by the surface states, particularly in large-geometry devices. An analytic expression forthe potential distribution in one-dimensional Si GaAs structures has been obtained previously bysolving the time-dependent continuity equations for holes and electrons and Poisson’s equation underconditions of low-level injection, without further assumptions such as space charge neutrality andneglect of the diffusion component of the current [105]. The solution is restricted to the range offrequencies below the reciprocal of the carrier lifetime in GaAs, which is sufficient for discussingthe frequency-dependent effects in GaAs MESFETs. This restriction is not necessary for obtaininganalytic expressions, but greatly simplifies them. For the boundary conditions of zero field andzero hole current, the obtained DC potential profile is almost insensitive to the substrate properties,exhibiting nearly linear distribution [80]. But the AC potential profile, given by in the followingexpression, is frequency-dependent and is sensitive to the density and location in the energy bandof the traps in the SI material [105].-F cosh(x/)— cosh((l— x)/i)+ cosh(1/i)V3b(x,w)=A{MIx— . +/sinh(1/i)P[(1 + a)M — 1—fi] cosh (x) — cosh ((1 — x)) + cosh (l) —(5.69)An(Pe + b) v’sinh (l/)withii = [Pe(1 + a) + (1 + 3)]/(1 + Fe),87= An(Pe+b)/(1+Pe),M = (1+/3—Ab)/(1+a—A),= TT/[T(1 +jWTT)],/3 = TT/[Tfl(1+jWTT)],where1/TT = Cr4 fle + en + CpPe + e,i/Tn = CnNTfl1/(fle+fll),1/Tn = CPNTfle/(fle + ii1),w is the angular frequency, NT is the density of a deep level, e, e are the emission rates of adeep level for electrons and holes, c, c, are the capture probabilities of a deep level for electronsand holes, e, pe are the equilibrium electron and hole concentrations, Fe = Pe / e, n1 is the electrondensity if the Fermi level were at the energy level of the deep level, 1 is the drain-source spacing. In(5.69) the distance x is normalized to /EkT/q2(ne + pa), and the parameter A can be determinedby the drain voltage.Substituting (5.69) into (5.68) and separating the obtained result into DC and AC parts yieldsthe AC component of the drain admittance:Zv [17Sb(11, w) — VSb(ll,0)] / qCNNgd= VSb(l) \/ 2(NA + ND)(VBCS + VDST — VSB(l1)) (5.70)The drain conductance is given by the real part of (5.70). The parameter VDST will depend on thedevice geometry: in non self-aligned devices biased in saturation most of the drain voltage is droppedacross the gate-drain region, and, therefore, VDST is only slightly higher than the saturation voltage,but in self-aligned transistors this will not be the case [1061. Therefore, in this work VDST is usedas a fitting parameter. The DC component of the output conductance can be evaluated from DC I-Vcharacteristics, and the total output conductance is thus obtained by summing up the AC and DCcomponents. The resulting equivalent circuit of a MESFET is shown in Fig. 5.48. In Fig. 5.48R0 is: the DC output conductance, g is the transconductance, g is defined in eq. (5.70), Rb andCsub represent the substrate admittance, which is due to the conduction between source and drainthrough the SI substrate [105]. Note that the above equivalent circuit includes frequency-dependent88GATE DRAINCsubSOURCEFigure 5.48: Small-signal equivalent circuit of a GaAs MESFET at low frequencies.elements gd’ Rsub and Csub, and in that it is different from the previously proposed circuits, forexample, the ones suggested by Scheinberg et a!. [107 1 and by Lee and Forbes [98). The outputadmittance is given by:Y0 = + +JtVCsub +gd (5.71)In comparison to other models our model has a certain degree of predictability, since its inputs areparameters of the traps that are present in the SI substrate and device geometry.5.3 Comparison with experimental and numerical dataThe analysis of the AC potential distribution across the source-substrate-drain structure underconditions of low-level injection is valid for a wide range of drain voltages, and, therefore, it can beused for investigation of drain-lag effects and AC I-V characteristics. This is confirmed by the factthat the drain current overshoot and the drain conductance dispersion were observed at drain voltagesas low as 1 V [101, 991, indicating that these phenomena are not originated, but perhaps enhanced,by high-level injection into the SI substrate. To test the validity of the model, we examine first ifit predicts the major trends in device behavior.According to the model the frequency-dependent component of the drain conductance increaseswith the acceptor density in the substrate in agreement with numerical simulations [6]. However,controversial results have been reported regarding the effect of a buried p layer beneath the channel:89while it is established that the buried layer improves DC characteristics of GaAs MESFETs, there is noconsensus whether it reduces the AC/transient-dependent effects [108, 1011. Our model predicts thata p layer slightly beneath the channel will increase the frequency dependence of the drain conductancethrough the increase of the shallow acceptor density, while it will not affect the frequency-dependentpotential distribution in the substrate, altogether making the frequency dispersion of the outputconductance even worse. But a deep implant, which provides in addition to the depletion layer aconductive layer beneath the channel, will eliminate the frequency dependence. This is in agreementwith the reported experimental data: when a deep implant was used no drain current transients wereobserved [109, 1081, but when a shallow implant was used in order to keep the p-layer completelydepleted, the drain current transients increased [101].To examine AC I-V characteristics we replace the DC voltage VSB (li) in (5.67) by its AC valueevaluated from (5.69). The resultant eq. (5.65) yields a higher current, since 17sb (li) increases withfrequencies in the low-frequency range. This is in agreement with the measured data, which indicatelarger saturation currents at kHz range [98, 99]. According to the AC potential profile shown inFig. 5.47, it is possible to devise structures, for which the frequency-dependent effects are reduced.Minimum effect will occur when the drain side of the gate is about the middle of the drain-sourcedistance, that can be expressed as: (& + Ig)/lcig 1. Maximum effect will occur when the drain sideof the gate is about 1/4 from the drain, that can be expressed as: (l + ig)/ldg 3. The predictionsof this simple analysis are in agreement with experimental data of drain current overshoots as afunction of gate-drain and gate-source spacings [101]. The results of this analysis for MESFETs withand without p-type buried layer are visualized in Fig. 5.49.Direct comparison between our model and measured data requires knowledge of substrateproperties. The analysis is further complicated by the fact, that in the substrate region beneaththe channel, in addition to the presence of the traps, originated in as-grown SI substrates, deep levelsmay be induced by processing [110]. Our model allows incorporation of multiple non-interactingtraps in the analytic expression for the AC drain conductance as described in [80, 105]. We havecompared our results with the numerical and measured data extracted from [111, 100]. The numericalanalysis suggested that in addition to EL2, there is a shallower electron trap, which plays a role in90BAD GOODS G Dnfl+ jfl+Lp layerSI SUBSTRATES G DS G Dnn+ p layerSI SUBSTRATES G DFigure 5.49: The impact of the device structure on the frequency dependence of the output admittance. Thefirst row shows MESFETs with a p-type buried layer. A deep p layer reduces the frequencydependence, while a shallow p layer may increase it. The second row shows the effect of thegate location on the frequency-dependent output admittance: placing gate closer to the sourceenhances the frequency dependence, while placing it closer to the source may reduce the effect.the frequency-dependent effects [1001, and, consequently, we used similar parameters to those inthe numerical simulation. Our results, calculated by (5.70), are in very good agreement with thenumerical and measured data, as shown in Fig. 5.50. Not shown in Fig. 5.50, but noteworthy, is thefact that the phase variation over the frequency range 1 — io Hz , calculated by (5.70), is less than 2°.We have examined the temperature effects by considering temperature-dependent emission ratesfor EL2 [1121: e = 2.83 x lO7T2exp(—0.814/kT) s’ and e = 1O3e, and the temperaturenil___I÷iSI SUBSTRATEnn+ n+SI SUBSTRATE91Cc-)Cdependence of the carrier concentration and the EL2 energy level. Fig. 5.51 shows drain conductanceversus frequency at two different temperatures, calculated by (5.70) assuming only one deep level(EL2) in the substrate, together with the measured data extracted from [99]. Our results reflect thetrend in device behavior, which is the shift of the frequency-dependent region of the drain conductanceto higher frequencies at higher temperatures. Experimental results indicate a smoother increase inthe drain conductance, suggesting presence of additional traps in the substrate.6.565.554.543.532.52100FREQUENCY [HzlFigure 5.50: Drain conductance vs. frequency. Results of the present model (solid line) are superimposed onnumerical results (dashed line) [7], and experimental data (circles) [20]. Parameters used: T = 300 K,ND = lO’7cm3,NA = 6 x 105cm3,VDS 2.5V, VDST = l.45V, = ldg 1pm, 1 = 1.2pm,7 x 1Ocm,p 105cm3,for trap at 0.69 eV;N1 = 5 x 106cm3O1 = 2 x 10’4cm20p1 = 2 x 108cm2for trap at 0.5 eV;N2 = 5 x lO’5cm3,0n2 = 5 X 1O’cm2,,p2 = 5 10’7cm2.101 102 10 10 iO92EEL)z0U0106FREQUENCY [Hz]Figure 5.51: Drain conductance vs. frequency at 325 K and 375 K. Results of the present model (solid line)are superimposed on experimental data (circles and asterisks) after Canfield et. a] [41. Parameters used:NEL2 = 5 x 106cm3,NA = 5 X lO’5cm3,1 Idg = 1 = ljITfl, VDs 3V, VDsT 1.6V.In conclusion, physically based model of the frequency-dependent drain conductance has beendeveloped. It allows an examination of the impact of device geometry and substrate properties,particularly the presence of multiple traps, on GaAs MESFET characteristics. The model reflectsmajor trends in the output admittance, namely: low-frequency dependence, temperature dependence,negligible phase variation, dependence on drain voltages. Being analytical, it should be useful forcircuit simulations.5.4 SummaryThe small-signal output conductance of GaAs MESFETs on SI substrates is known to exhibit2.5100 101 102 10 10 10593frequency dependence. So far this phenomenon has been modeled using equivalent circuits andnumerical techniques. In contrast, we propose an analytical physically-based model. The modelaccounts for alteration of the thickness of the conductive channel through the channel-substratejunction modulation by the drain voltage. Because of the presence of deep levels the AC potentialdistribution across the SI material between drain and source will be frequency dependent, and,consequently, will result in a different AC voltage drop across the channel-substrate interface atdifferent frequencies. This will result in a change of the output conductance with frequency.A closed fonn for the AC potential distribution across the SI material was obtained by solvingthe continuity equations for holes and electrons plus Poisson’s equation under conditions of low-levelinjection and low frequencies without some commonly used assumptions, such as local space-chargeneutrality, neglect of recombination, and diffusion or drift component of the current. The solution forthe AC potential distribution is affected by the density and location of deep levels in the SI substrate,and can be easily extended to the general case of non-interacting multiple traps. Thus, the modelprovides a tool for investigating the effect of trap parameters on the frequency characteristics. Itreproduces experimentally observed and numerically simulated results for the output conductance.Being analytical, the expression for the frequency-dependent output conductance is suitable forincorporation in circuit simulators.94Chapter 6ConclusionsThe majority of text books on semiconductor devices are based on the research spanning thelast four decades on silicon. Many concepts developed for and commonly used in the silicon devicetheory, such as space charge neutrality, neglect of recombination in short structures etc. are entirelymisleading when dealing with GaAs devices on SI substrates. This is due to the fact that trap densitiesin SI GaAs are much higher than in Si, while carrier lifetimes are much shorter. Examining eqn.(3.34) leads to the conclusion, that under non-equilibrium conditions space charge neutrality in SIGaAs is rather an exception than a rule, and occurs only when the concentrations of excess trappedholes and electrons are equal. Van Roosbroeck , who introduced the concept of ambipolar transportto the semiconductor theory [113] , based on local quasi-neutrality of the excess free carriers, wasthe one (with Casey), who classified some of the materials as relaxation semiconductors, in whichseparation of the excess free electrons and holes is established through zero local recombination[95]. In addition, ambipolar approach omits from the analysis the Poisson’s equation [1141. Thisomission is not justified for SI GaAs, in which the excess trapped carrier densities are much higherthan the excess free carrier densities. The ambipolar approach is commonly used in analysis ofsilicon devices [114]. In comparison to silicon SI GaAs has much higher resistivity and much shorterlifetimes. The clues for different treatment of such materials were discussed by McKelvey [1151.But since at the time these materials were not a part of the mainstream research effort, many of theconclusions regarding them have been overlooked. One of the main conclusions of my work is thatmany concepts developed for Si should be reexamined when talking about the GaAs technology.The borrowing of concepts from Si technology may lead to severe errors in understanding GaAsdevices on SI substrates.In Chapter 1 the use of MESFET as a tool for investigating of the interaction with the SIsubstrate of more complicated devices was suggested. It is interesting to note that the gate, whichwas identified as one of the main players in the sidegating effect in MESFETs [43], was also foundto play a major role in the sidegating effect in HEMTs [116]. Sidegating remains the major obstacle95to fabrication of high density GaAs integrated circuits [5]. This work contributes to understandingand modeling of this problem by:1. Identification of hole injection from the gate as one of the possible sources of sidegating. Thehole injection from the portion of the gate on a SI substrate was shown numerically by Goto et at.[83] and experimentally by Liu et at. [58] to play an important role in sidegating. Our resultsshow the possibility of hole injection from the gate on a doped channel and also provide a newinterpretation of the results in Refs. [83] and [58], namely, appearance of hysteresis as a resultof a strong hole injection into the SI substrate and the effect of weak hole injection on sidegating.2. Identification of the role of recombination processes and, consequently, recombination centers(that are different from EL2) in sidegating.3. Application of the analysis of low-level injection reported first by Manifacier and Henisch [41]to sidegating problem. Low-level analysis has not been applied before to sidegating, since it isusually assumed that “nothing happens” under these conditions because the carrier transport isdominated by ohmic conduction. This work shows that even though the I-V characteristics maybe nearly ohmic, many physical processes may occur under conditions of low-level injectionresulting in such effects as non-linear voltage distribution across a SI substrate. The processesleading to such behavior have been discussed in this work. The resultant non-linear potentialprofiles were used to explain sidegating at low sidegate voltages and long range sidegating.4. Providing close form expressions for the potential distribution across a SI GaAs substrate andthe output admittance of GaAs MESFETs on SI substrates, which should be useful in circuitsimulations.5. Extension of the low-level injection analysis to the frequency-domain.6. Application of the above analysis to modeling the frequency dependence of the output impedance.7. Investigation of sidegating in the frequency domain (AC sidegating). It was shown that a strongsidegating effect may exist due to inherent properties of SI GaAs. While it was shown that holeinjection plays an important role in the DC sidegating effect, the sidegating effect in the kllzMHz range does not depend on hole injection and does not require specific biasing conditions[105]. This effect will have most impact on wide-band circuits used in analog and mixed analog-96digital systems. The analysis of sidegating in the frequency domain can also be used as a toolfor separating various processes occurring at the same time in sidegating effect, since they areexpected to have different frequency responses.The results presented in Chapters 3—5 indicate that device characteristics depend strongly on thesubstrate properties which, in turn, are determined by trap parameters. Under non-equilibriumconditions even shallow traps may affect the device characteristics. Thus different combinationsof multiple trap parameters will result in different device behavior [117]. Even if the propertiesof the as-grown substrate are completely controlled, additional traps may be induced by processingsteps. Despite the difficulties in obtaining reproducible performance for devices on SI substrates, thecontinuation of this work is necessary because there will be always demand for GaAs technology,particularly in optoelectronic circuits [118]. The problems may not be solved, but understood, and,consequently, predicted (=modeled) and controlled. It is possible that innovative circuit techniqueswill contribute to this. Future work may include:1. Measurements of and modeling the hole injection from the gate of a GaAs MESFET. This meansmore studies towards understanding of the nature of Schottky contacts on GaAs, particularly theeffect of a Schottky contact area on hole injection.2. Incorporation of the results of Chapter 4 in investigating crosstalk in GaAs integrated circuits.3. In Chapter 1 sidegating was presented as a three-dimensional effect. Therefore, the extensionof the existing one-dimensional analysis to two and three dimensions by numerical techniquesshould provide more insight into sidegating.4. Extension of the low-level injection analysis into the time domain.5. Extracting the trap parameters from the AC measurements of the conductivity of a SI GaAssubstrate.6. Identification and characterization of recombination centers, which is according to my work asimportant as an investigation of EL2.7. Sidegating is known to be a temperature-dependent effect [119], and, therefore, the resultspresented here should be analyzed as a function of temperature.978. In this work the effect of deep levels in the SI substrate on the drain conductance was investigated.Their effect on the transconductance, which is known to degrade under high frequency operation[120], should be investigated.9. Implementation of the analytical model of the drain admittance in SPICE (circuit simulator).10. Development of circuit techniques to avoid sidegating.98References[1] P.R. Jay. invited talk given at the 7th mt. Conf on Semi-insulating 111-V Materials. (to bepublished in proceedings), Ixtapa, Mexico, April 1992.[2] S.I. Long and S.E. Burner. Gallium Arsenide Digital Integrated Circuit Design. McGraw-Hill,Singapore, (1990).[3] M. Rocchi. Physica, 129B, page 119, 1985.[4] R.Y. Koyama, B. Odekirk, W.A. Vetanen, E.P. Finchem, and I.G. Beers. In Semi-Insulating111-V Materials, page 203, Malmo, Sweden, (1988). Cheshire, Shiva.[5] L.G. Salmon. In Semi-Insulating 111-V Materials, page 379. Adam Huger, Toronto, Canada,(1990).[6] S.H. Lo and C.P. Lee. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-38, page 1693, (1991).[7] M.A. Lampert and P. Mark. Current Injection in Solids. Academic Press, New-York, (1970).[8] H. Hasegawa, T. Kitagawa, T. Sawada, and H. Ohno. Inst. Phys. Conf Ser. No. 74, chap. 7,page 521, (1985).[9] S. Sriram and M.B. Das. Solid-State Electronics 28, page 979, 1985.[10] T.H.H Vuong, W.C. Gibson, R.E. Ahrens, and J.M. Parsey. IEEE Trans. Electron Dev. ED-37,page 51, (1990).[11] K. Horio, A. Oguchi, and H. Yanai. Solid-State Electron. 34, page 1393, 1991.[12] C.P. Lee, S.J. Lee, and B.M. Welch. IEEE Electron Device Lett. EDL-3, page 97, (1982).[13] H. Goronkin, M.S. Birrittella, W.S. Seelback, and R.L. Vaitkus. IEEE Trans. Electron DevicesED-29, page 845, 1982.[14] C. Kocot and C.A. Stolte. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-29, page 1059, (1982).[15] Z.M. Li, S.P. McAlister, W.G. McMullan, C.M. Hurd, and D.J. Day. J. App!. Phys. 67 (12),page 7368, 1990.99[16] C.L. Chen, F.W. Smith, A.R. Calawa, L.J. Mahoney, and M.J. Manfra. IEEE Trans. ElectronDevices ED-36, page 1546, 1989.[17] M.S. Birrittella, W.C. Seelbach, and H. Goronkin. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-29, page1135, 1982.[181 T. Edwards. Foundations for Microstrip Circuit Design. Wiley, New York, (1981).[19] K.C. Gupta, R. Garg, and I.J. Bahi. Microstrip Lines and Slot-Lines. Artech House, Norwood,MA, (1981).[20] M.A. Lampert. Proc. IRE 50, page 1781, (1962).[21] K. Lehovec and H. Bao. Solid-St. Electron. 30, page 479, (1987).[22] K. Horio, T. Ikoma, and H. Yanai. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-33, page 1242, (1986).[23] J.C. Bourgoin, 11.1. von Bardeleben, and D. Stievenard. J. Appi. Physics 64, page 65, (1988).[24] D. Dascalu. Br. J. App!. Phys. 18, page 575, (1967).[25] G.T. Wright. J. Br. IRE 20, page 337, (1960).[26] D.E. Holmes, R.T. Chen, K.R. Elliott, C.G. Kirkpatrick, and P.W. Yu. IEEE Trans. MicrowaveTheory and Technique MTT-30, page 949, (1982).[27] W. Shockley. Bell. Syst. Tech. J. 28, page 435, 1949.[28] R.E. Kremer, M.C. Arkian, J.C. Abele, and J.S. Blakemore. J. Appi. Physics 62, page 2424,(1987).[29] C.T. Sah and V.G.K. Reddi. IEEE Trans. Electron. Devices ED-il, page 345, (1964).[30] W. Shockley. Solid-St. Electron. 2, page 35, (1961).[31] B.I. Shklovskii and A.L. Efros. Electronic Properties of Doped Semi-Conductors. Springer,Berlin, (1984).[32] B. Pistoulet, F. M. Roche, and S. Abdalla. Phys. Rev. B 30, page 5987, (1984).[33] A.K. Jonscher, C. Pickup, and S.H. Zaidi. Semicond. Sci. Technol. 1, page 71, (1986).[34] C.C. Shih, B.J. Sheu, and H.M. Le. J. Solid-State Circuits 23, page 878, (1988).[35] T.H. Chen and M. Shur. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-32, page 18, (1985).100[36] T. Hariu, K. Takahashi, and Y. Shibata. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-30, page 1743, 1983.[37] M. Ozeki, K. Kodama, and A. Shibatomi. Inst. Phys. Conf Ser. No. 63, chapter 7, page 323.1982.[38] T.A. Fjeldly, A. Paulsen, and 0. Jensen. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-36, page 1557,1989.[39] K. Lehovec. Appl. Phys. Lett. 25, page 279, 1974.[40] P. Shulman and L. Young. Solid-St. Electron. 30, page 379, (1991).[41] J.-C. Manifacier and H.K. Henisch. J. Appi. Phys. 52, page 5195, (1981).[42] D.D. Shulman and L. Young. Jpn. J. App!. Phys. vo. 31, Part 1, No. 5A, page 1303, 1992.[43] D.D. Shulman and L. Young. to appear in IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, (November 1992).[44] Y. Zohta. Solid-St. Electron. 16, page 1029, (1973).[45] S.I. Long and S.E. Burner. Gallium Arsenide Digital Integrated Circuit Design, chapter 2.McGraw-Hill, Singapore, (1990).[46] J.D. Wiley and G.L. Miller. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-22, page 265, 1975.[47] P.F. Lindquist and W.M. Ford. in GaAs FET principles and technology, pages 5—59. ArtechHouse, Dedham, Massachusetts, (1982).[48] P.H. Ladbrooke and S.R. Blight. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-35, page 257, (1988).[49] K. Lehovec and R. Zuleeg. Solid-St. Electron. 27, page 785, 1984.[50] H.K. Sacks and A.G. Mimes. mt. J. Electron. 28, page 565, 1970.[51] E. Schibli and A.G. Mimes. Solid-St. Electron. 11, page 323, (1968).[52] J.P. McKelvey. Solid State and Semiconductor Physics, page 475. Krieger, Malabar, Florida,1986.[53] S.M. Sze. Physics ofSemiconductor Devices, chapter 6. Wiley, New York, 2nd edition, (1981).[54] D.L. Scharfetter. Solid-St. Electron. 8, page 299, (1965).[55] A.Y.C. Yu and E.H. Snow. Solid-State Electron. 12, page 155, 1969.101[56] J.C. Lee, A.J. Strojwas, T.E. Schlesinger, and A.G. Mimes. IEEE Trans. Electron DevicesED-38, page 447, (1991).[57] P. George, P.K. Ko, and C. Hu. Solid-St. Electron. 34, page 233, (1991).[58] Y. Liu, R.W. Dutton, and M.D. Deal. iEEE Electron Device Lett. EDL-11, page 505, (1990).[59] H.K. Henisch. Semiconductor Contacts, pages 156—161. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2nd edition,(1989).[60] S.M. Sze. Physics ofSemiconductor Devices, chapter 5. Wiley, New York, 2nd edition, (1981).[61] J.F. Wager and A.J. McCamant. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-34, page 1001, (1987).[62] Y. Ohno and N. Goto. J. Appi. Phys. 66, page 1217, (1989).[63] J.-C. Manifacier and H.K. Henisch. Phys. Rev. B 17, page 2640, (1978).[64] J.-C. Manifacier and H.K. Henisch. Phys. Rev. B 17, page 2648, (1978).[65] A.G. Mimes. Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics 61, pages 63—160, (1983).[66] H.J. von Bardeleben, J.C. Bourgoin, and D.Stievenard. Appl. Phys. Lett. 53, page 1089, (1988).[67] M. Bauemler, U. Kaufmann, P. Mooney, and J. Wagner. In Semi-Insulating Ill-V Materials,page 29. Adam Huger, Toronto, Canada, (1990).[68] D. Wong, H.K. Kim, Z.Q. Fang, T.E. Schlesinger, and A.G. Mimes. J. Appl. Phys. 66, page2002, 1989.[69] W.G. Oldham and S.S. Naik. Solid-St. Electron. 15, page 1085, (1972).[70] P. George, P.K. Ko, and C. Hu. Solid-St. Electron. 32, page 165, (1989).[71] A. Bar-Lev. Semiconductors and Electronic Devices, page 99. Prentice-Hall, London, (1979).[72] 5. Mottet and C. Le Mouellic. In Semi-Insulating Ill-V Materials, Kah-nee-ta, page 406.Shiva, Nantwich, UK, (1984).[73] P. George, K. Hui, P.K. Ko, and C. Hu. IEEE Electron Devices Leti. EDL-11, page 434, (1990).[74] S. Makrarn-Ebeid and P. Minondo. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-32, page 632, (1985).[75] N. Braslau and P.S. Hauge. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-17, page 616, (1970).102[76] W.T. Masselink, N. Braslau, D. LaTulipe, W.I. Wang, and S.L. Wright. Inst. Phys. Conf Ser.No. 91, chap. 7, page 665, (1988).[77] S.M. Sze, D.J. Coleman, and A. Loya. Solid-State Electron. 14, page 1209, 1971.[781 Y.M. Houng and G.L. Pearson. J. Appl. Phys. 49, page 3348, 1978.[79] B.J. Van Zeghbroeck, W. Patrick, H. Meier, and P. Vettiger. IEEE Electron Device Lett. EDL8, page 188, 1987.[801 D.D. Shulman and L. Young. J. Appi. Phys. 70, page 7149, (1991).[81] R.F. Schwarz and J.F. Walsh. Proc. Inst. Radio Eng. 41, page 1715, 1953.[82] E.H. Rhoderick. Metal-Semiconductor Contacts, pages 107—ill. Clarendon Press, Oxford,(1978).[83] N. Goto, Y. Ohno, and H. Yano. Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. No 106, chapter 9, page 671. 1990.[84] A.G. Mimes. Deep Impurities in Semiconductors, chapter 11. Wiley, New York, 1973.[85] C. Tsironis. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-27, page 277, 1980.[86] N.C. Halder and D.C. Look. J. Appi. Phys. 66, page 4858, 1989.[87] K. Weiser and R.S. Levitt. J. Appl. Phys. 35, page 2431, 1964.[88] P.R. Seiway and W.M. Nicolle. J. Appi. Phys. 40, page 4087, 1969.[89] W.P. Dumke. Proc. mt. Conf Phys. Semiconductors, 7th, Paris,, page 611, 1964.[90] J.S. Blakemore. J. Appi. Physics 53, page 123, (1982).[91] 0. Madelung. Physics of Ill-V Compounds. Pergamon, Oxford, 1961.[92] R.A. Clarke, M.A. Green, and J. Shewchun. J. Appi. Phys. 45, page 1442, 1975.[93] L.E. Larson. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits SC-22, page 567, (1987).[94] D. Shulinan and L. Young. Solid-St. Electron. 30, page 1281, (1991).[95] W. van Roosbroeck and H.C. Casey. Phys. Rev. B 5, page 2154, (1972).[96] J.-C. Manifacier and H.K. Henisch. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 41, page 1285, 1980.[97] J.M. Golio, M.G. Miller, G.N. Maracas; and D.A. Johnson. IEEE Trans. Electron DevicesED-37, page 1217, (1990).103[98] M. Lee and L. Forbes. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-37, page 2148, (1990).[99] P.C. Canfield, S.C.F. Lam, and D.J. Allstot. J. Solid-State Circuits SC-25, page 299, (1990).[100] Q. Li and R.W. Dutton. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-38, page 1285, 1991.[1011 W. Mickanin, P. Canfield, E. Finchem, and B. Odekirk. IEEE GaAs IC Symposium TechnicalDigest, page 211, (1989).[102] K. Yamaguchi and H. Kodera. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-23, page 545, (1976).[103] C.D. Hartgring. Solid-St. Electron. 25, page 233, (1982).[104] M.F. Chan, C.P. Lee, L.D. lou, R.P. Vahrenkamp, and C.G. Kirkpatrick. Appi. Phys. Leu.44, page 869, (1984).[105] D.D. Shulman. J. Appi. Phys. 72 (6), page 2288, 1992.[106] M. Shur. GaAs Devices and Circuits, chapter 7. Plenum Press, New York, (1987).[107] N. Scheinberg, R.J. Bayruns, P.W. Wallace, and R. Goyal. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 24,page 532, 1989.[108] P. Canfield and L. Forbes. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-33, page 925, (1986).[109] W.T. Anderson, J.R., M. Simons, E.E. King, H.B. Dietrich, and R.J. Lambert. IEEE ElectronDev. Lett. EDL-3, page 248, (1982).[1101 W. B. Leigh, J.S. Blakemore, and R.Y. Koyama. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-32, page1835, (1985).[1111 P. Canfield, J. Medinger, and L. Forbes. IEEE Electron Device Lett., page 88, (1987).[112] J.S. Blakemore. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 49, page 627, (1988).[113] W. van Roosbroek. Phys. Rev. 91, page 282, 1953.[114] R.M. Warner and B.L. Grung. Transistors. Wiley-Interscience, New York, (1983).[115] J.P. McKelvey. Solid State and Semiconductor Physics, page 333. Krieger, Malabar, Florida,1986.[116] Y.J. Chan, D. Pavlidis, and G.I. Ng. IEEE Electron Dev. Lett. EDL-12, page 360, 1991.104[117] D.D. Shulinan. Proceedings of the 7th In:. Conf on Semi-Insulating Ill-V Materials (in press).Ixtapa, Mexico, April 1992.[1181 H.J. Hovel, M. Albert, D.R. Lombardi, T. Mckoy, and K.J. Greene. In Semi-Insulating 111-VMaterials, page 433. Adam Hilger, Toronto, Canada, (1990).[119] C.P. Lee and M.F. Chang. IEEE Electron. Dev. Lett. EDL-6, page 428, 1985.[1201 Y. Fujisaki and N. Matsunaga. In Semi-Insulating Ill-V Materials, page 241, Malmo, Sweden,(1988). Cheshire, Shiva.105Appendix A Potential distribution in the uniform channelThe solution of (2.16) is given by:v(x) = C + De + B/A, (A.72)where p = ,/rCh8[]W(C + c8) + ys] ,A = [jW(Cjs + c3) + ysjTchs ,B (jwc3 + Ys)TchsVsg and C,D are constants to be determined by the boundary conditions. The current in the channel is givenby:i(x) = —[1/rh3(Ov/ôx)j.106Appendix B Potential distribution in the exponentially tapered channelAssuming wc3(x)>> wc3,and o = j3, eqn (2.15) transforms into:Ov—— JWTchoCjoV = TchoC(JWCs + ys)vsg. (B.73)The solution is given by:v(x) = (jwc3 +y3)evsg/jwcj0+ Ee[(/2)x] + (B.74)where E and F are constants to be determined by the boundary conditions. The current in the channelis given by: i(x) = —(1/rh0e)(Ov/Ox).107

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0064824/manifest

Comment

Related Items