4.6 Article

Rhenium ohmic contacts on 6H-SiC

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
卷 96, 期 9, 页码 5357-5364

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.1797550

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rhenium (Re) thin-film contacts (100-nm thick) were deposited on carbon-rich, nominally stoichiometric, and silicon-rich 6H-SiC surfaces, which were moderately doped with nitrogen (1.28x10(18) cm(-3)). Morphology (Dektak), phase formation (x-ray diffraction), chemistry (Auger electron spectroscopy), and electrical properties (I-V) were characterized for the as-deposited and annealed (120 min, 1000 degreesC, vacuum <1x10(-6) Torr) contacts. As-deposited films were nonohmic. Films grown on carbon-rich surfaces were nonspecular, granular, and often delaminated during characterization. At room temperature in air, the Re films on stoichiometric SiC remained optically specular reflecting for 3 h, but then became hazy from oxidation. The Re films on silicon-rich surfaces, stored in air at room temperature, resisted ex situ oxidation for approximately 24 h. The annealed samples remained specular without visible signs of oxidation. The annealing resulted in a reduction in surface roughness for all the films regardless of substrate chemistry. The phase separation between carbon and rhenium was observed based on the formation of interfacial Re clusters and a similar to10-nm graphite surface layer after annealing. Auger data showed that Si layers (5-10 nm) deposited to create Si-rich surfaces were partially consumed to form rhenium silicide during annealing, and the sharp Re/Si/SiC interface became more diffused with Re detected similar to50 nm deeper into the structure. The annealing of Re films on moderately doped (1.28x10(18) cm(-3)) SiC resulted in ohmic contacts with an average specific contact resistance of 7.0x10(-5) Omega cm(2) for stoichiometric and 1.6x10(-5) Omega cm(2) for silicon-rich samples. The annealed contacts on carbon-rich surfaces remained rectifying. (C) 2004 American Institute of Physics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据