Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:07:14.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Inadequacy of the Conventional View of Hydrogenated Amorphous Silicon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

D. Adler
Affiliation:
Center for Materials Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
M. Silver
Affiliation:
Center for Materials Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
M. P. Shaw
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202
V. Cannella
Affiliation:
Ovonic Display Systems, Troy, MI 48084
Get access

Abstract

The conventional view of the electronic structure of hydrogenated amorphous silicon is: (1) the material is characterized by a mobility gap of about 1.8 eV, with exponential band tails due to disorder and deep defect states arising from silicon dangling bonds (T3 centers); (2) substitutional doping occurs because of the formation of chargedimpurity/dangling-bond pairs, e.g. P4+ – T3-, at the substrate temperature; (3) the effective correlation of the T3 center is about 0.4 eV; (4) T3o centers are the predominant recombination center; (5) the three intrinsic ESR signals are due to electrons on T3o centers, electrons in the conduction band tail, and holes in the valence band tail. It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that this model is in sharp disagreement with an array of basic experimental data, and much of the evidence presented in its favor is based on self-inconsistent logic. We conclude that it is very likely that large concentrations of charged intrinsic defect pairs are present in all hydrogenated amorphous silicon films.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1986

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. Cody, G. D., Semiconductors and Semimetals 21B, 11 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Spear, W. E. and LeComber, P. G., Phil. Mag. 33, 935 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Beyer, W., J. Non-Cryst. Solids 66, 1 (1984).Google Scholar
4. Tiedje, T., Semiconductors and Semimetals 21C, 207 (1984).Google Scholar
5. Dersch, H., Stuke, J., and Beichler, J., Phys. Stat. Sol. (b) 105, 265 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. LeComber, P. G. and Spear, W. E., Phil. Mag. 53, L1 (1986); J. D. Cohen, Semiconductors and Semimetals 21C, 9 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Inushima, T., Brodsky, M. H., Kanicki, J., and Serino, R. J., AIP Conf. Proc. 120, 24 (1984); A. Triska, I. Shimizu, J. Kocka, L. Tichy, and M. Vanecek, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 59–60, 493 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Street, R. A., J. Non-Cryst. Solids 77–78, 1 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Adler, D., Solar Cells 9, 133 (1983); J. Phys. (Paris) 42, C4–3 (1981).Google Scholar
10. Adler, D., Semiconductors and Semimetals 21A, 291 (1984).Google Scholar
11. Roberston, J., J. Non-Cryst. Solids 77–78, 37 (1985).Google Scholar
12. Adler, D., AIP Conf. Proc. 120, 70 (1984).Google Scholar
13. Amer, N. M. and Jackson, W. B., Semiconductors and Semimetals 21B, 83 (1984).Google Scholar
14. Dersch, H., Stuke, J., and Beichler, J., Phys. Stat. Sol. (b) 107, 307 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Guha, S. and Hack, M., J. Appl. Phys. 58, 1683 (1985).Google Scholar
16. Parker, M. A., Conrad, K. A., and Schiff, E. A., these proceedings.Google Scholar
17. Yue, W. and Stesmans, A., Phys. Rev. B, in press.Google Scholar
18. Friederich, A. and Kaplan, D., J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 49, Suppl. A, 1233 (1980).Google Scholar
19. Hasegawa, S., Shimizu, T., and Hirose, M., J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 49, Suppl. A, 1237 (1980).Google Scholar
20. Bar-Yam, Y. and Joannopoulos, J. D., these proceedings.Google Scholar