 |
Again, we look at a
"perfect" semiconductor, where doping has
been achieved by replacing some lattice atoms by suitable doping atoms without
- in the ideal world - changing anything else. |
|
 |
We have now sharp allowed energy energy levels in
the band gap, belonging to electrons of the doping atoms, or since electrons
can not be distinguished, to all electrons in the semiconductor. |
| |
 |
These levels may or may not be occupied by an
electron. If it is not occupied by an electron, it is by necessity occupied by
a hole; the Fermi distribution will give the probability for occupancy as
before. In analogy to the intrinsic
case, we now have the following highly stylized picture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
While the picture may look
complicated, it is actually just a device to keep track of the number of
charges in the semiconductor. Since there must be an over-all charge
neutrality, we must have |
|
|
|
|
|
| S pos. charges
= S neg. charges |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
This equation can be used to calculate the exact
position of the Fermi energy as we will see. Since most everything else follows
from the Fermi energy, lets look at this in some detail. |
 |
First lets count the negative charges - always relative to the perfect
semiconductor at zero Kelvin, where all electrons are in the conduction band
and charge neutrality automatically prevails. |
|
 |
There are, first, the electrons in the conduction
band. Their concentration as
spelled out before was |
|
|
|
|
|
| ne =
Ne eff · exp |
EC
EF
kT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
More generally and more correctly, however, we
have |
|
|
|
|
|
| ne =
Ne eff · f(EC,
EF,T) |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The Fermi energy
EF is now included as a variable in the Fermi function, because the density
of electrons depends on its precise value which we do not yet know. In this
formulation the electron concentration comes out always correct, no matter where the Fermi energy is
positioned in the band gap. |
|
 |
Then there are, second, the negatively charged acceptor
atoms - ions in fact. Their concentration
NA is given by the density of
acceptor states (which is just their density NA) times the probability that the states are occupied,
and that is given by the value of the Fermi distribution at the energy of the
acceptor state, f(EA, EF,T).
We have accordingly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Note: The Fermi distribution in this case should be
slightly modified to be totally correct. The difference to the straight-forward
formulation chosen here is slight, however, so we will keep it in this simple
way. More about this in an
advanced module. |
 |
Now lets count the positive charges. |
|
 |
First,
we have the holes in the valence band.
Their number is given by the number of electrons that do not occupy states in the valence band; in other
words we have to multiply the effective density of states with the probability
that the state is not occupied. |
|
 |
The probability that a state is not occupied is just 1 minus the probability that it is occupied, or
simply 1 f(E, EF, T). This gives
the density of holes to |
|
|
|
|
|
| nh =
Nh eff · |
æ
ç
è |
1 exp |
EF
EV
kT |
ö
÷
ø |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Once more, the better general formula for any value of the
Fermi energy whatsoever is |
|
|
|
|
|
| nh =
Nh eff · |
æ
è |
1 f(EV,
EF, T) |
ö
ø |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Second, we have the positively charged donors, i.e. the donor atoms that
lost an electron. Their concentration ND+
is equal to the density of states at the donor level which is again identical
to the density of the donors themselves times the probability that the level is
not occupied; we have |
|
|
|
|
|
| ND+ |
= |
ND |
æ
è |
1 f(ED, EF, T) |
ö
ø |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Charge equilibrium thus demands |
|
|
|
|
|
| Ne eff ·
f(EC, EF, T) +
NA · f (EA,
EF, T) = Nh
eff · |
æ
è |
1 f(EV, EF,
T) |
ö
ø |
+ ND · |
æ
è |
1 f(ED, EF,
T) |
ö
ø |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
If we insert the expression for the Fermi
distribution |
|
|
|
|
|
f(E, EF,
T) =
|
1
|
| exp |
æ
è |
En
EF
kT |
ö
ø |
+ 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
where En stands for
EC,V,D,A, we have one equation for the one unknown quantity EF
! |
 |
Solving this equation for any given
semiconductor (which specifies EC,V) and any
concentration of (ideal) donors and acceptors, will not only give us the exact
value of the Fermi energy EF for any temperature
T, i.e. EF(T), but all
the carrier concentrations as specified above. |
|
 |
Unfortunately, this is a messy
transcendental equation - it has no direct solution that we can write
down. |
|
 |
Before the advent of cheap computers, this was a
problem - you now had to do case studies and use approximations: High or low
temperatures, only donors, only acceptors and so on. This is still very useful,
because it helps to understand the essentials. |
 |
However, here we are going to use a
program (written by
J. Carstensen),
that solves the transcendental equation and provides all functions and numbers
required. It is contained as an independent module in the illustration section.
|
|
 |
You should work extensively with this program.
The module contains a number of suggestions for exercises - use it! |
 |
Here we show only a screen shot with
the resultt for the typical case of Si with |
|
 |
1. An acceptor concentration of 1015
cm3 (red line). |
|
 |
2. An donor concentration of 1017
cm3 (blue line). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The equations used
for charge neutrality also allow to deduce an extremely important relation, the
mass
action law (for electrons and holes), as follows: |
|
 |
First we consider the product |
|
|
|
|
|
| ne · nh |
= |
Ne eff · f(EC,
EF, T) · Nh
eff · [1 -
f(EV, EF,T)] |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Then we insert the formula for
the Fermi distribution and note that |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
We get the famous and very
important mass action law (try it) |
|
|
|
|
|
| ne · nh
= (Ne eff · Nh
eff ) · exp |
EC
E V
kT |
=
ni2 |
|
|
|
|
 |
We are now in a position to calculate
the concentration of majority and minority carriers with very good precision if
we use the complete formula, and with a sufficient precision for the
appropriate temperature range were we can use the following very simple
relations |
|
|
|
|
|
| nMaj |
= |
NDop |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| nMin |
= |
ni2
nMaj |
= |
ni2
NDop |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
We know that the conductivity s of the semiconductor is given by |
|
|
|
|
|
| s = e · (ne
· µe + nh ·
µh) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
With m =
mobility of the carriers. |
 |
We now have the concentrations;
obviously we now have to consider the mobility of the carriers. |
|
|
 |
Finding simple relations for the
mobility of the carriers is just not
possible. Calculating mobilities from basic material properties is a
far-fetched task, much more complicated and involved than the carrier
concentration business. |
|
 |
However, the carrier concentrations (and their
redistribution in contacts and electrical fields) is far more important for a
basic understanding of semiconductors and devices than the carrier
mobility. |
|
 |
At this point we will therefore only give a
cursory view of the essentials relating to the mobility of carriers. |
 |
The mobility
µ of a carrier in
an operational sense is defined as the proportionality constant between the
average drift velocity
vD of a
(ensemble of) carriers in the presence of an electrical field
E: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The average (absolute) velocity v of a
carrier and its drift velocity vD must not be confused; for a
detailed discussion consult the links to two basic modules:
|
|
 |
The simple linear relationship between the drift
velocity and the electrical field as a driving force is
pretty universal - it is
the requirement for ohmic behavior (look it up in the link) - but not always
obeyed. In particular, the drift velocity may saturate at high field strengths, i.e. increasing
the field strength does not increase vD anymore.
We
come back to that later. |
 |
Here we only want to get a feeling
for the order of magnitudes of the mobilities and the major factors determining
these numbers. |
|
 |
As we (should) know, the prime
factor influencing mobility is the average time between scattering processes.
In fact, the mobility µ
may be written as
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
With ts
= mean scattering time. We thus have to look at the major scattering
processes in semiconductors. |
 |
There are three important
mechanisms: |
 |
The first (and least important one) is scattering at crystal defects like dislocations or
(unwanted) impurity atoms. |
|
 |
Since we consider only "perfect"
semiconductors at this point, and since most economically important
semiconductors are pretty perfect in this respect, we do not have to look into
this mechanism here. |
|
 |
However, we have to keep an open mind because
semiconductors with a high density of lattice defects are coming into their own
(e.g. GaN or CuInSe2) and we should be aware that the
mobilities in these semiconductors might be impaired by these defects. |
 |
Second, we have the scattering at wanted impurity atoms, in other
word at the (ionized) doping atoms. |
|
 |
This is a major scattering process which leads to
decreasing mobilities with increasing doping concentration. The relation,
however, is non-linear and the influence is most pronounced for larger doping
concentration, say beyond 1017 cm3 for
Si. |
|
 |
Examples for the relation between doping
and mobilities can be found in the illustration. |
|
 |
As a rule of thumb for Si, increasing the
doping level by 3 orders of magnitude starting at about about
1015 cm3 will decrease the mobility by one
order of magnitude, so the change in conductivity will be about only two orders
of magnitude instead of three if only the carrier concentration would
change. |
|
 |
The scattering at dopant ions decreases with increasing temperature. |
 |
Third we have scattering at
phonons - the other important process. Phonons are an expression of the thermally stimulated
lattice vibrations and such strongly dependent on temperature. |
|
 |
This part must scale with the density of phonons,
i.e. it must increase with increasing
temperature (with about T 3/2). It is thus not
surprising that it dominates at high temperatures (while scattering at dopant
atoms may dominate at low temperatures). |
 |
Scattering at phonons and dopant
atoms together essentially dominate the mobilities. |
|
 |
The different and opposing temperature
dependencies almost cancel each other to a certain extent for medium to high
doping levels (see the illustration), again a very beneficial
feature for technical applications where one doesn't want strongly temperature
dependent device properties. |
|
|
|
© H. Föll (Semiconductor - Script)