Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:25:44.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polycrystalline ZnO- and ZnO:Al-Layers: Dependence of film stress and Electrical Properties on the Energy Input During the Magnetron Sputtering Deposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

K. Ellmer ,
R. Cebulla  and
R. Wendt
K. Ellmer
Affiliation:
Hahn-Meitner-Institut, dept. “Solare Energetik”, D-14109 BERLIN, Germany, [email protected]
R. Cebulla
Affiliation:
Hahn-Meitner-Institut, dept. “Solare Energetik”, D-14109 BERLIN, Germany, [email protected]
R. Wendt
Affiliation:
Hahn-Meitner-Institut, dept. “Solare Energetik”, D-14109 BERLIN, Germany, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Doped and undoped zinc oxide fims are widely used as transparent window and contact layers in thin film solar cells. Up to now the role of film stress on the layer and solar cell properties was not investigated in detail. In this paper the influence of the energy input from the magnetron sputtering plasma on the structural and electrical layer properties was investigated. The energy input during the deposition could be varied by using a simultaneous RF- and DC-excitation at a fixed sputtering pressure. The energy and the density of the ions bombarding the substrate at floating potential have been measured by a plasma monitor and by a Langmuir probe. Plasma monitor measurements displayed the different plasma potentials and ion energies at a floating substrate. While the DC-discharge is characterized by low plasma potentials and low ion energies, the RF-mode shows up to 2.5 times higher ion energies of EAr++ ≈ 50 eV.

The structural and electrical properties of doped and undoped ZnO-films, deposited with different RF/DC-power ratios can be explained by taking into account the different ion energies and densities during the deposition. Higher ion energies (RF-excitation) improve the structural quality and reduce the film stress, which decreases the specific resistance, both by a higher charge carrier mobility as well as higher carrier concentrations. The lowest resistivities and film stresses were ≈ 6–10-4 Ωcm and 0.5 GPa, respectively. Layers with different film stresses have been used to prepare CuInS2/CdS/ZnO-solar cells. Lower stress in the ZnO-films leads to higher cell efficiencies. For the first time, these results can explain why RF-sputtering is almost exclusively used for the window preparation of thin film solar cells.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 472: Symposium I – Polycrystalline Thin Films - Structure, Texture, Properties..III , 1997 , 245
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

1. Kessler, J., Ruckh, M., Hariskos, D., Rühle, U., Menner, R. and Schock, H.W., Proc. 23rd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conf. (Louisville, Kentucky, 1993, IEEE, Piscataway), p. 447.Google Scholar
2. Scheer, R., Walter, T., Schock, H.W., Fearheiley, M.L. and Lewerenz, H.J., Appl. Phys. Lett. 63, 3294 (1993).Google Scholar
3. Woddcock, J.M., Özsan, M.E., Turner, A.K., Cunningham, D.W., Johnson, D.R., Marshall, R.J., Mason, N.B., Oktik, S., Patterson, M.H., Ransome, S.J., Roberts, S., Sadeghi, M., Sherborne, J.M., Sivapathasundaram, D. and Walls, I.A., Proc. 12th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conf. (Amsterdam, 1994, H.S. Stephens & Ass., Bedford) p. 948.Google Scholar
4. Cebulla, R., Wendt, R. and Ellmer, K., J. Appl. Phys., submitted (1997).Google Scholar
5. Klug, H.P. and Alexander, L.E., X-Ray Diffraction Procedures for Polycrystalline and Amorphous Materials (Wiley&Sons, New York, 1974), p. 687.Google Scholar
6. Segmüller, A. and Murakami, M., in Analytical Techniques for Thin Films edited by Tu, K. N. & Rosenberg, R. (Academic Press, Boston, 1988), p. 143.Google Scholar
7. Morgan, A.E. and Werner, H.W., J. Chem. Phys. 68, 3900 (1978).Google Scholar
8. Ellmer, K., Kudella, F., Mientus, R., Schieck, R. and Fiechter, S., Thin Solid films 247, 15 (1994).Google Scholar
9. Ellmer, K., Diesner, K., Wendt, R. and Fiechter, S., in Polycrystalline Semiconductors IV-Physics, Chemistry and Technology, edited by Pizzini, S., Strunk, H. P. & Werner, J. H. (Trans Tech, Zug, Switzerland, 1995), p. 541.Google Scholar
10. Kay, E. and Rossnagel, S.M., in Handbook of Ion Beam Processing Technology. Principles, Deposition, Film Modification and Synthesis,, edited by Cuomo, J. J., Rossnagel, S. M. & Kaufman, H. R. (Noyes Pubi., Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1989), p. 171.Google Scholar
11. Petrov, I., Hultman, L., Sundgren, J.-E. and Greene, J.E., J. Vac. Sci. Techn. A 10, 265 (1992).Google Scholar
12. Hultman, L., Sundgren, J.-E., Bergstrom, D.B. and Petrov, I., J. Appl. Phys. 78, 5395 (1995).Google Scholar
13. Müller, K.-H., Phys. Rev. B 35, 7906 (1987).Google Scholar
14. Gilmer, G.H. and Roland, C., Rad. Eff. Def. Solids 130–131, 321 (1994).Google Scholar
15. Scheer, R., Alt, M., Luck, I. and Lewerenz, H.J., Sol. Energ. Mat. Sol. Cells, in press (1997).Google Scholar
16. Mamor, M., Finkman, E. and Meyer, F., Proc. MRS Symp. Thin Films: Stresses and Mechanical Properties V (Boston, 1994, MRS), p. 149.Google Scholar