4.6 Article

Fluence- and temperature-dependent studies of carrier dynamics in radiation-damaged silicon-on-sapphire and amorphous silicon

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
卷 93, 期 11, 页码 9012-9018

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.1569665

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the effects of lattice damage level, pump fluence, and temperature on carrier dynamics in thin silicon films. Two samples of radiation-damaged silicon-on-sapphire (RD-SOS) and one amorphous silicon thin film on sapphire were investigated. The first RD-SOS sample was O+ implanted with doses of 1x10(13) cm(-2) at 100 and 200 keV; the second RD-SOS sample was O+ implanted with a dose of 1x10(15) cm(-2) at 100 and a second dose of 2x10(15) cm(-2) at 200 keV; the third sample was a nonhydrogenated amorphous-silicon thin film grown by electron-beam evaporation. Carrier concentrations up to 7.4x10(20) cm(-3) were injected into the samples with 100 fs, 400 nm pump pulses, while the transient optical properties were probed with subpicosecond-wide terahertz (THz) pulses. Using a thin film Drude model, we derived the carrier relaxation time and effective carrier mobility for the three samples. The increase of lattice damage decreased both the relaxation time constant and the carrier mobility. A slight increase in relaxation time was observed for increasing pump fluence, but mobility values were not affected. No change in relaxation time or mobility was found for temperatures from 5 to 300 K. We find average relaxation time constants of 5.5 ps in the first sample, 1.4 ps in the second sample, and 0.58 ps in the third sample, and average carrier mobility values of 383, 44, and 4.4 cm(2)/V s, respectively. The presence of a single relaxation time constant is consistent with a trap-influenced relaxation mechanism and not of Auger recombination for. carrier concentrations, <10(21) cm(-3), indicative of the absence of thermally activated processes in the relaxation mechanism. (C) 2003 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