4.1 Article

Temperature-Dependent Current-Voltage (I-V) and Capacitance-Voltage (C-V) Characteristics of Ni/Cu/n-InP Schottky Barrier Diodes

期刊

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
卷 43, 期 1-2, 页码 13-21

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13538-013-0120-7

关键词

Ni/Cu/n-InP Schottky diode; Ideality factor; Gaussian distribution; Barrier inhomogeneities

资金

  1. Kyungpook National University Research Fund
  2. Brain Korea 21 (BK21)
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea
  4. MEST [2012-0005671, 2012-0000627]
  5. R&D program of MKE/KETEP [2011101050017B]
  6. WCU (World Class University) program [R33-10055]
  7. IT R&D program of MKE/KEIT [10038766]
  8. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [2011101050017B] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current-voltage (I-V) and capacitance-voltage (C-V) characteristics of Ni/Cu/n-InP Schottky barrier diodes are studied over a wide temperature range, from 210 K to 420 K. The I-V characteristics display anomalous thermal behavior. The apparent barrier height decays, and the ideality factor grows at low temperatures, and the series resistances resulting from Cheung's and Norde's procedures are markedly temperature dependent. The nonlinearity of the Richardson plot and the strong temperature dependence of the Schottky-barrier parameters indicate that the interface is spatially inhomogeneous. Plots of the zero-bias barrier height as a function of 1/(2kT) points to a Gaussian distribution of barrier heights with 0.90 eV mean height and 0.014 eV standard deviation. When this distribution is accounted for, a Richardson of 6.5 A/(cm K)(2) results, relatively close to the 9.4/(cm K)(2) predicted by theory. We conclude that, combined with a Gaussian distribution of barrier heights, the thermionic-emission mechanism explains the temperature-dependent I-V and C-V characteristics of the studied Schottky-barrier diodes.

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

4.1
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