Japanese Journal of Applied

Physics

INVITED REVIEW PAPER Related content

- Wide gap semiconductor microwave
Material science and device physics in SiC devices
V V Buniatyan and V M Aroutiounian
technology for high-voltage power devices - Topical Review
F Roccaforte, F Giannazzo and V Raineri
To cite this article: Tsunenobu Kimoto 2015 Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54 040103 - Topical Review
F Nava, G Bertuccio, A Cavallini et al.

View the article online for updates and enhancements. Recent citations
- Modulation of band gap by normal strain in
SiC-based heterostructures
M. Luo et al

- Determination of stress components in 4H-

SiC power devices via Raman
spectroscopy
Ryuichi Sugie and Tomoyuki Uchida

- Recent advances in 4H-SiC epitaxy for

high-voltage power devices
Hidekazu Tsuchida et al

This content was downloaded from IP address 54.70.40.11 on 24/11/2017 at 12:50

Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 54, 040103 (2015) INVITED REVIEW PAPER
http://dx.doi.org/10.7567/JJAP.54.040103

Material science and device physics in SiC technology for high-voltage power devices
Tsunenobu Kimoto
Department of Electronic Science and Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto 615-8510, Japan
E-mail: kimoto@kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp
Received November 28, 2014; accepted January 28, 2015; published online March 23, 2015

Power semiconductor devices are key components in power conversion systems. Silicon carbide (SiC) has received increasing attention as a
wide-bandgap semiconductor suitable for high-voltage and low-loss power devices. Through recent progress in the crystal growth and process
technology of SiC, the production of medium-voltage (600–1700 V) SiC Schottky barrier diodes (SBDs) and power metal–oxide–semiconductor
field-effect transistors (MOSFETs) has started. However, basic understanding of the material properties, defect electronics, and the reliability of SiC
devices is still poor. In this review paper, the features and present status of SiC power devices are briefly described. Then, several important
aspects of the material science and device physics of SiC, such as impurity doping, extended and point defects, and the impact of such defects on
device performance and reliability, are reviewed. Fundamental issues regarding SiC SBDs and power MOSFETs are also discussed.
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics

1. Introduction High Voltage

104
The improvement of energy efficiency (reduction of power Medium Voltage
Power
Transmission
consumption and dissipation) is one of the most critical
Rated Current (A)
problems of this century. In 2010, the world average ratio of 103 Traction

HEV/EV Factory
electrical energy consumption to total energy consumption Low Voltage Motor
Automation

was about 20%.1) This ratio is expected to rapidly increase in 102 Control
Automobile Home
the future. Regardless of the means by which electrical power Electronics Appliance
DC-DC
is generated, power conditioning and conversion are required converter
(ABS,
SW Power
Injector)
for cost-effective and efficient delivery to the loads. It is 101 Supply
Server
estimated that more than 50% of all electrical power flows PC Telecom. AC adaptor
HDD Lamp Ballast
through some form of power conversion. Electric power is 100 1 2
regulated and converted so that it can be supplied to the loads 10 10 103 104
in an optimum form. Electric power conversion includes Rated Voltage (V)
AC–DC, DC–AC, DC–DC (voltage conversion), and AC–
AC conversion (voltage or frequency conversion).2) The Fig. 1. (Color online) Major application areas of power devices plotted as
efficiency of power conversion is typically 85–95% using a function of rated voltage.
currently available technology, which is not high enough,
because approximately 10% of the electric power is lost as
heat at every power conversion. wide bandgap and high critical (breakdown) electric field
In general, the efficiency of power electronics is mainly strength. Among the many wide-bandgap semiconductors,
limited by the performance of semiconductor devices. As SiC is rather exceptional because it makes both n- and p-
shown in Fig. 1, major applications of power devices include type control across a wide doping range (1014–1019 cm−3)
power supplies, motor control, heating, robotics, electric= relatively easy. The ability of SiC to form silicon dioxide
hybrid vehicles, traction, lighting ballasts, and electric power (SiO2) as a native oxide is another important advantage for
transmission. The development of high-voltage and low-loss device fabrication. Because of these properties, SiC has been
power devices is also essential for the construction of future developed as a semiconductor for high-power and high-
smart grids. temperature electronics.6–13)
Silicon (Si) is currently the most commonly used However, the physical and chemical stability of SiC
semiconductor for power devices. The performance of Si made crystal growth extremely difficult and severely
power switching devices has been significantly improved hampered the development of SiC semiconductor devices
through the development of power metal–oxide–semicon- and their electronic applications in the last century. The
ductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs) and insulated gate existence of various SiC crystal structures with different
bipolar transistors (IGBTs).3,4) Progress in Si LSI technology stacking sequences (otherwise known as “polytypism”)14)
and in device simulation has had a great impact on the devel- has also been an obstacle to the growth of electronic-grade
opment of Si power devices in recent decades. However, SiC crystals. Among the numerous SiC “polytypes”, 4H-SiC
now that Si power device technology is relatively mature, it is has been the choice for power devices9,12,15–18) owing to
not easy to achieve innovative breakthroughs using this the availability of high-quality epitaxial wafers and superior
technology. physical properties such as its high breakdown electric field
Silicon carbide (SiC) is a IV–IV compound material with strength,19) high electron mobility, and low anisotropy.20)
unique physical and chemical properties. The strong chemical Figure 2(a) shows a schematic of the crystal structure of 4H-
bonding between Si and C atoms gives this material high SiC, where the open and closed circles denote the Si and C
hardness, chemical inertness, and high thermal conductiv- atoms, respectively. This polytype exhibits a hexagonal
ity.5) The strong bonding also provides this material with a structure with four Si–C bilayers inside the unit cell. That is
040103-1 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015) INVITED REVIEW PAPER

Table I. Main physical properties of SiC (4H-SiC) and Si at room

[0001] temperature.
SiC Si
Bandgap (eV) 3.26 1.12
Electron mobility for high-purity material
(cm2 V−1 s−1)
μ parallel to c-axis 1200 1350
μ perpendicular to c-axis 1020 1350
: Si : C Hole mobility (cm2 V−1 s−1) 120 450
Electron saturated drift velocity (cm=s) 2.2 × 107 1.0 × 107
(a)
Hole saturated drift velocity (cm=s) (∼1.3 × 107) 9 × 106
Breakdown electric field for material with a
(0001) doping density of 1016 cm−3 (MV=cm)
“Si face” EB parallel to c-axis 2.8 0.3
EB perpendicular to c-axis 2.2 0.3
c Thermal conductivity (W cm−1 K−1) 3.3–4.9 1.3–1.5
(1100) Relative dielectric constant 9.8 11.9
(1120)
“M face” “A face”
a3
a2 Inverter
DC bus
a1
(0001)
“C face”
rectifier M
(b) switch
Motor
Fig. 2. (a) Schematic crystal structure of 4H-SiC, where the open and
closed circles denote the Si and C atoms, respectively. (b) Hexagonal cell of phase: U V W
 ð1120Þ,
SiC, where the major crystal faces, (0001), ð0001Þ,  
and ð1100Þ, are
indicated.
Fig. 3. Typical circuit of three-phase power inverter for motor control.

why this polytype is called “4H” according to the Ramsdell
notation.14) This stacking sequence is a kind of mixture of
zincblende and wurtzite structures. Since 4H-SiC is the
default SiC polytype for electronic applications, the term
“SiC” will hereafter represent 4H-SiC in this paper, unless
otherwise specified. Figure 2(b) illustrates the hexagonal unit
cell of SiC, where the major crystal faces, (0001), ð0001Þ,
 
ð1120Þ, and ð1100Þ, are indicated. Here, (0001) and ð0001Þ 
are called the “Si face” and “C face”, respectively. Note
that the standard face of commercial SiC wafers is almost
exclusively (0001).
Table I tabulates the main physical properties of SiC
and Si at room temperature. The unique properties of SiC
include its three times larger bandgap, roughly ten times
higher breakdown electric field strength, and three times
higher thermal conductivity as compared with Si. Note that in
SiC (i.e., 4H-SiC),20) the electron mobility along the 〈0001〉
direction is about 15–20% higher than that perpendicular to
〈0001〉, which is beneficial for the development of vertical
power devices on standard SiC{0001} wafers.
Both SiC and gallium nitride (GaN) are wide-bandgap
semiconductors, which are attractive for advanced power
devices because of their superior physical properties.
Although it is difficult to predict how Si-, SiC-, and GaN-
based power devices will compete, SiC power devices are
more attractive for high-voltage applications owing to the
availability of reasonably high-quality epitaxial wafers and
the more mature process technology than that of GaN. On the
other hand, GaN-based lateral switching devices fabricated
040103-2
on GaN heteroepitaxially grown on large Si wafers show
much promise for relatively low-voltage applications.21,22)
The performance, reliability, and cost of SiC and GaN power
devices will be determined depending on advances in growth
and device technologies of the two materials. The present
review focuses on fundamental issues regarding SiC for
power device applications. The present understanding and
future challenges of the material science and device physics
are discussed.
2. Features of SiC power devices
Power devices are key components in power conversion
systems. Figure 3 depicts a typical power conversion circuit
(inverter) employed for three-phase motor control. In each
phase with positive and negative polarities, the switching
operation of a pair consisting of a transistor (switching
device) and diode regulates the electric power supplied to
the motor. In many applications, both rectifiers (diodes) and
switching devices having the same rating of voltage and
current are required. In any case, power devices are either
“on-state” or “off-state”, similar to logic devices in integrated
circuits. A switching operation is performed between the on-
and off-states, but the switching frequency is usually not very
high, in the range from 1 kHz to a few 100 kHz.
Figure 4 schematizes the current–voltage characteristics
of (a) a power rectifier (diode) and (b) a power switching
device, where the ideal and real characteristics are compared.
In ideal devices, a “zero” voltage drop in the on-state and
“zero” leakage current (and “infinite” breakdown voltage) in
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015) INVITED REVIEW PAPER

Schottky Contact Ohmic Contact

Rectifier Switch
ideal

Current
ideal real

Current
real Si n- n+

RON real
RON SiC n n+
ideal
ideal
~

VB 0 Voltage

~
EC(SiC) 1

Electric Field
0
VB
Voltage
SiC Rdrift(SiC) R (Si)
real 500 drift
(a) (b) slope ~ ND (same blocking voltage)

EC(Si)
Fig. 4. (Color online) Current–voltage characteristics of (a) power diode Si
and (b) power switching device, where the ideal and real characteristics are
0 Drift Layer Thickness
compared.

Fig. 5. (Color online) Electric field distribution in a one-sided abrupt

the off-state are expected. However, real devices exhibit a
finite semiconductor resistance and a finite leakage current
(and a maximum voltage limited by breakdown), which are
the main cause of the on-state and off-state loss, respectively.
Furthermore, any transient behavior during the switching
operation results in switching loss. Therefore, the major
requirements for power devices include (i) low on-state
voltage (low on-resistance), (ii) low leakage current, and (iii)
fast switching with minimum current=voltage transients,
which are directly linked to the on-state loss, off-state loss,
junction for SiC and Si at the same breakdown voltage. Because of the
approximately ten times higher breakdown field strength of SiC than that of
Si, the thickness of the voltage-blocking layers for SiC power devices can be
reduced tenfold and the doping concentration can be increased by two orders
of magnitude compared with the Si counterpart with the same blocking
voltage.
2
Specific On-Resistance (Ωcm ) 100
Ron ~ VB2.5

t”
10-1

mi
and switching loss, respectively. A high blocking voltage

i li
can, of course, be a requirement, depending on the appli-

“S

it”
cation. Furthermore, a large safe-operation area (robustness)

lim
10-2
and reliability are also important because power devices must

iC
withstand, for example, simultaneous high-voltage and high-

current stress for a certain period without any degradation. In
all these aspects, SiC shows promising potential, as described
below.
Figure 5 schematically illustrates the electric field distri-
bution in a one-sided abrupt junction for SiC and Si at the
same breakdown voltage. Because the breakdown field
strength for SiC is about ten times higher than that for Si,
the thicknesses of the voltage-blocking layers in SiC power
devices can be one-tenth those in Si devices, and their doping
concentrations can be two orders of magnitude higher than in
their Si counterparts for the same blocking voltage. Thus, the
drift-layer resistance in unipolar devices can be reduced by
2–3 orders of magnitude at any given blocking voltage by
utilizing SiC instead of Si. This is particularly important for
high-voltage devices because the drift-layer resistance (Rdrift)
increases with the blocking voltage (VB) in proportion to
V 2:3­2:5
B and is the dominant factor determining the total
specific on-resistance (RON) of power devices.3,4) The on-state
loss (PON) of a power device without a built-in voltage is
given by RON J2ON , where JON is the on-state current density
(typically 100–300 A=cm2 at the rated current). Thus, the
extremely low drift resistance of SiC devices contributes to
the reduction of the on-state loss. Figure 6 plots the minimum
specific on-resistance (drift-layer resistance) against the
blocking voltage for Si and SiC unipolar devices. The mini-
mum specific on-resistance (drift-layer resistance) is given
by4,12,23)
4V 2B
Rdrift ¼ ; ð1Þ
"E3B
040103-3
“S
10-3
: SiC JFET
: SiC MOSFET
10-4
102 103 104
Breakdown Voltage (V)
Fig. 6. (Color online) Minimum specific on-resistance (drift-layer
resistance) for Si and SiC unipolar devices (so-called “Si limit” and “SiC
limit”) versus the blocking voltage. Experimental data for SiC power
MOSFETs and JFETs recently reported are plotted.
where ε, μ, and EB are the dielectric constant, mobility,
and breakdown field strength, respectively. Here, η is the
ionization ratio for the dopants at room temperature. In the
case of lightly-doped n-type SiC, η is about 0.85–1.0 owing
to the relatively shallow nitrogen donors. This is especially
important for wide-bandgap semiconductors, where the
incomplete ionization of dopants is often observed. In fact,
p-type SiC Schottky barrier diodes (SBDs) and power
MOSFETs cannot compete with Si because of the low
hole mobility and small ionization ratio for aluminum (Al)
acceptors at room temperature. In Fig. 6, the doping-
dependent mobility and breakdown field were taken into
account to calculate the drift-layer resistance. The above-
mentioned benefits of SiC power devices can be clearly
recognized in this plot. Although the drift-layer resistance
(Rdrift) is proportional to V 2B in Eq. (1), the actual resistance
increases in proportion to V B2:3­2:5 , as seen in Fig. 6, because
the breakdown field strength decreases in the lightly-doped
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015) INVITED REVIEW PAPER

DIMOSFET trench MOSFET

SBD PiN diode Gate Gate SiO2
SiO2
Source Source
ohmic contact
Schottky contact passivation passivation

p+-type anode n+ n+
p p n+ n+
p-body
p p
termination p-well
termination
n-type drift layer n-type voltage-blocking layer n-drift layer n-drift layer

n+-type substrate n+-type substrate n+-substrate n+-substrate

ohmic contact ohmic contact Drain Drain

(a) (b) (c) (d)

JFET BJT (npn)

passivation thyristor IGBT (n-channel)
Gate Source Gate SiO2
Emitter Base
Anode Emitter
p passivation Gate passivation
n+ n+
p+
p+ p+ n+ n+
p n n+

p-well
n-drift layer n: voltage-blocking layer n-blocking layer
p-blocking layer

n+-substrate n+-substrate p+-region

n+-region

Drain Collector Cathode Collector

(e) (f) (g) (h)

Fig. 7. Schematic structures of various SiC power devices currently developed. (a) Schottky barrier diode (SBD), (b) PiN diode, (c) double-implanted
MOSFET (DIMOSFET), (d) trench MOSFET, (e) Junction FET (JFET), (f ) bipolar junction transistor (BJT), (g) thyristor, (h) n-channel insulated gate bipolar
transistor (IGBT).

materials employed for high-voltage devices. The depend-
ence of the breakdown electric field strength on doping
density is discussed in Sect. 4.
Another important feature of SiC power devices is fast
switching with minimum reverse recovery (little current
overshoot). For medium- and high-voltage applications, Si
bipolar devices such as PiN diodes, IGBTs, bipolar junction
transistors (BJTs), and thyristors are employed because
the high on-resistance can be significantly reduced by a
conductivity modulation effect through minority carrier
injection.4) Bipolar power devices, however, suffer from
minority carrier storage, leading to a slow switching speed
and large reverse recovery in the turn-off operation. For these
applications, SiC unipolar devices such as SBDs and FETs
are an ideal choice since the on-resistance of these devices is
low and minority carrier storage is absent. Even SiC bipolar
devices can offer fast switching because the voltage-blocking
region is about ten times thinner and thus the stored charge
in the region is about ten times smaller compared with Si
bipolar devices.12,13)
Owing to the wide bandgap and chemical stability of
SiC, SiC electronic devices are operational at high temper-
atures (>250 °C). This is attractive in that it helps to avoid
bulky cooling units, which are often required in Si-based
power converters. Note that SiC devices themselves can
operate even at 500 °C or higher,24,25) but performance factors
such as their on-resistance generally degrade at such high
temperatures. Packaging technology represents another issue
in the commercialization of high-temperature operational
SiC power devices.
040103-4
Figure 7 illustrates the structures of major SiC power
devices that have been developed. These device structures
are basically similar to those of Si power devices, but
some modifications have been made due to the unique prop-
erties and problems of the current process technology. For
example, impurity doping by a diffusion process is unrealistic
owing to the extremely small diffusion constants of dopants
in SiC.5,12) Thus, impurity doping is performed by either
epitaxial growth or ion implantation. In SiC, a high density
of deep levels and extended defects remains inside the ion-
implanted region as well as the implant-tail region, even after
high-temperature activation annealing. As a consequence,
the carrier lifetimes near the implanted junction are very short
(<0.1 µs), which is not desirable for bipolar devices, where
efficient carrier injection and diffusion are essential. There-
fore, pn junctions in SiC bipolar devices, such as PiN diodes,
BJTs, and thyristors, are fabricated exclusively by epitaxial
growth. For the fabrication of SiC unipolar devices, such as
SBDs and MOSFETs, however, ion implantation is a very
useful technique because nearly ideal breakdown character-
istics can be obtained with implanted junctions and no carrier
injection is involved in the normal operation of unipolar
devices.12,13)
Figure 8 shows the major territories of individual unipolar
and bipolar power devices for Si and SiC in terms of the
rated blocking voltage.26) The boundary between unipolar
and bipolar devices is located at 300–600 V in the case of Si
power devices. In SiC power devices, this boundary is shifted
toward a blocking voltage that is about ten times higher,
namely several kV. It is expected that SiC unipolar devices
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
SBD
rectifier
PiN
MOSFET switch
Si
IGBT, GTO
SBD
rectifier
PiN
MOSFET, JFET switch
SiC
BJT, IGBT, GTO
100 V 300 V 600 V 1.2 kV 4.5 kV 10 kV 20 kV
Voltage rating (V)
Fig. 8. (Color online) Major territories of individual unipolar and bipolar
power devices for Si and SiC in terms of the rated blocking voltage.
will replace Si bipolar devices in the blocking-voltage range
from 300 V to about 6500 V. SiC bipolar devices will be
attractive for ultrahigh-voltage applications above 10 kV.
3. Present status of SiC power devices
Since the 1980’s, sustained effort has been directed toward
developing SiC material and device technology. Because
device-quality SiC with a reasonable size was not available
for many years, the breakthroughs in SiC crystal growth
achieved in the 1980’s eventually triggered device devel-
opment. Tairov and Tsvetkov reported the basic concept of,
and successful experimental data on, the so-called “seeded
sublimation technique” (or “modified Lely method”).27,28)
This technique was refined by Carter and coworkers, and the
first commercial SiC wafers were released in 1991.29) Low-
resistivity n-type SiC wafers with a diameter of 100–150 mm
are currently commercially available. The high-quality
homoepitaxial growth of SiC was achieved by utilizing
step-flow growth on off-axis {0001} substrates by chemical
vapor deposition (CVD).30,31) In the epitaxial growth of SiC,
perfect replication of the SiC polytype without any polytype
mixing is important and was first realized by step-flow
growth (called “step-controlled epitaxy”).10,30,32) Since wide-
range n- and p-type doping is easy with this growth tech-
nique, the availability of epitaxial wafers with the desired
doping density and thickness has accelerated device develop-
ment since the 1990’s.
Matus et al. reported a 1 kV 6H-SiC pn diode and its
rectification operation up to 600 °C.33) The author’s group
demonstrated a 1 kV 6H-SiC SBD with a low specific on-
resistance and 400 °C rectification in 1993.34) In 1994, the on-
resistance of high-voltage SiC SBDs was markedly reduced
by using 4H-SiC.35) After structure and process optimization,
the first SiC SBD products were released in 2001.36) One of
the typical applications of SiC SBDs has been as fast diodes
employed in the power-factor-correction circuit of switching-
mode power supplies.36) Because of the negligibly small
reverse recovery of SiC SBDs, the switching loss can be
dramatically reduced and the switching frequency can be
increased, leading to the downsizing of passive components.
The market for SiC SBDs has grown rapidly over the last
several years, and SiC SBDs are employed in a variety of
power systems, including power supplies, photovoltaic con-
verters, air conditioners, and motor controls for elevators
and railcars.37) In research and development, the maximum
blocking voltage of SiC diodes has exceeded 25 kV.38,39)
040103-5
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
In conjunction with the development of high-voltage
SiC diodes, the fabrication of vertical SiC switching devices
started in the early 1990’s. In 1993, a vertical trench
MOSFET using 6H-SiC was demonstrated by Palmour
et al.40) Palmour and coworkers also extensively developed
4H-SiC trench MOSFETs, thyristors, and BJTs as important
steps towards high-power electronics.41) In 1997, the first
planar double-implanted MOSFET (DIMOSFET) using
SiC with a blocking voltage of 760 V and a low on-resistance
was reported by Cooper and coworkers.42) This group
demonstrated a 1.4 kV–15 mΩ cm2 SiC trench MOSFET
with a number of innovative design features in 1998.43)
A 660 V–1.8 mΩ cm2 SiC MOSFET with a unique channel
design was demonstrated in 2006.44) To avoid problems at
the SiC MOS interface, vertical junction FETs (JFETs) were
developed,45,46) leading to the commercialization of SiC
power JFETs in 2006.36) Following the steady improvement
of MOS channel mobility and oxide reliability, SiC power
DIMOSFETs have been commercially available since
2010.29,47) These devices are well accepted by the market,
and industry is now reaping the benefits of SiC power
switches. For example, the volume and weight of a power
supply or inverter can be reduced by a factor of 2–10,
depending on the extent to which SiC components are
employed. In addition to the size and weight reduction,
a substantial reduction in power dissipation has been
confirmed, leading to improved efficiency in electric power
conversion systems owing to the use of SiC components.
In research and development, double-trench MOSFETs with
a very low on-resistance of below 1 mΩ cm2,48) as well as
10 kV DIMOSFETs49) have been demonstrated. However,
these SiC power switching devices require further improve-
ment in performance and cost reduction. As examples
of ultrahigh-voltage switching devices, 15–20 kV thyristors,
IGBTs, and BJTs have been demonstrated.38,50,51) For more
detail, please see recent conference proceedings.52) Figure 6
plots the on-resistance and breakdown voltage of recently
reported SiC power FETs. Although a gap exists between
the theoretical limit and experimental data, especially in
relatively low-voltage (600–1200 V) devices, the perform-
ance is orders of magnitude better than the Si limit. Note that
the performance of SiC SBDs is closer to the theoretical limit
of SiC (not shown).
It should be pointed out, however, that the basic under-
standing of the material science and device physics in SiC is
still poor compared with Si technology. For example, many
of its physical properties, which are important for accurate
device simulation, are unknown. The behavior of defects and
their impact on device performance and reliability are under
investigation. The mechanism of defect formation during
device processing steps such as oxidation and ion implanta-
tion remains poorly understood. Furthermore, several unique
features of device physics that are observed in SiC but
not observed in Si can be common in wide-bandgap
semiconductors. For example, the dominant process of
carrier generation in a space-charge region as well as the
breakdown mechanism of SiC devices may be very different
from those of Si devices because of the different bandgap and
about ten times higher electric field strength for SiC. The
main purpose of this paper is to present a basic understanding
of SiC technology.
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015) INVITED REVIEW PAPER

Temperature (K) 2.0

EC

Fermi Energy from Ei (eV)

1000 500 300 200 1.5
1015 ND =
Intrinsic Carrier Density (cm-3) 1.0 1x1019 cm-3
1x1015 cm-3 1x1018 cm-3
1010 0.5
1x1014 cm-3 1x1017 cm-3
1x1016 cm-3
0 Ei 1x1016 cm-3
105 1x1014 cm-3 1x1017 cm-3
-0.5
Si 1x1015 cm-3 1x1018 cm-3
0 -1.0 1x1019 cm-3
10 NA =
-1.5
10-5 SiC EV
-2.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
10-10 Temperature (K)
1 2 3 4 5
1000 / T (K-1) Fig. 10. Fermi level for nitrogen- or aluminum-doped SiC as a function of
temperature and impurity density, taking into account the temperature
dependence of the bandgap and the incomplete ionization of dopants at low
Fig. 9. (Color online) Arrhenius plot of the intrinsic carrier density for temperatures.
SiC and Si.

Breakdown Electric Field Strength (V/cm)

4. Important aspects associated with material
properties
The major physical properties of SiC are tabulated in Table I.
In this section, a few electronic properties peculiar to SiC
(or wide bandgap semiconductors) are briefly discussed.
Because of its wide bandgap, the intrinsic carrier density (ni)
in SiC is extremely low, 5 × 10−9 cm−3 at room temperature,
while the corresponding value for Si is 1 × 1010 cm−3. An
Arrhenius plot of the intrinsic carrier densities for SiC and Si
is shown in Fig. 9. In general, carrier generation is propor-
tional to n2i in the case of band-to-band generation and to ni in
the case of generation via a deep level.53) This is the main
reason why SiC devices exhibit a low leakage current even
at elevated temperatures. Furthermore, it is of interest to
estimate the equilibrium minority carrier density in SiC.
Consider n-type SiC having an electron density of 1 × 1016
cm−3, for example. The equilibrium hole density in this n-
type SiC can be estimated to be (5 × 10−9 cm−3)2=(1 × 1016
cm−3) = 2.5 × 10−33 cm−3 at room temperature. Therefore, it
is reasonable to assume that no minority carriers are present
in SiC unless intentional carrier injection or excitation is
performed. No minority carriers are involved during the on-
state operation of SiC unipolar devices, which is not the case
for Si SBDs. In a SiC MOS capacitor, no inversion layer is
created even if a sufficiently large bias voltage is applied,
which leads to the appearance of deep depletion because of
the absence of minority carriers. These facts must be taken
into account in analyzing the characteristics of SiC devices.
Through advances in crystal growth and defect engineering,
semi-insulating SiC (SI-SiC) wafers have become commer-
cially available. When the Fermi level is pinned at 1.0 eV
below the conduction band edge (or above the valence band
edge), the majority carrier density is estimated to be as low as
about 200 cm−3. Indeed, the resistivity of commercial SI-SiC
wafers is extraordinarily high, over 1011 Ω cm,54) which is
useful for the development of high-frequency devices55) and
high-temperature integrated circuits.56)
In conjunction with the extremely small intrinsic carrier
density, the Fermi level does not approach the midgap
(intrinsic level) in SiC, even at high temperatures. Figure 10
plots the Fermi level for nitrogen- or aluminum-doped SiC as
040103-6
107
4H-SiC<0001>
6H-SiC
<0001>
106
3C-SiC<111>
Si
105
1014 1015 1016 1017 1018
-3
Doping Density (cm )
Fig. 11. Breakdown electric field strength versus doping density for 4H-
SiC〈0001〉, 6H-SiC〈0001〉, and 3C-SiC〈111〉. The data for Si are also shown
for comparison.
a function of temperature and impurity density, taking into
account the temperature dependence of the bandgap and the
incomplete ionization of dopants at low temperatures.12)
Figure 10 indicates that chemical reactions and defect
stability in SiC crystals may exhibit a clear conduction type
or doping density dependence during high-temperature treat-
ment. It has been reported, for example, that the thermal
oxidation rate for SiC at 1100–1300 °C is dependent on
the conduction type and doping density.57) A theoretical
study has predicted that the formation energy and migration
(diffusion) barrier of point defects in SiC strongly depend
on the Fermi level.58) In SiC, this Fermi level dependence
is maintained during high-temperature treatment above
1000 °C.
Figure 11 plots the breakdown electric field strength versus
the doping density for 4H-SiC〈0001〉, 6H-SiC〈0001〉, and
3C-SiC〈111〉.12,19,59,60) The data for Si are also shown for
comparison. 4H- and 6H-SiC exhibit approximately 8–10
times higher breakdown field strengths than Si at a given
doping density, while the field strength for 3C-SiC is only 3–4
times higher because this polytype has a relatively small
bandgap (similar to gallium phosphide). It should be noted
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
that the breakdown field strength is strongly dependent on the
doping density, as shown in Fig. 11. As the doping density is
increased, the width of the space-charge region as well as the
distance over which carriers are accelerated both decrease.
Furthermore, the mobility is reduced in highly doped mate-
rials because of enhanced impurity scattering. These are the
reasons why the breakdown electric field strength increases
with increasing doping density. As shown in Fig. 11, the
breakdown electric field for 6H-SiC〈0001〉 is slightly higher
than that for 4H-SiC〈0001〉 despite the smaller bandgap of the
former (Eg = 3.02 eV for 6H-SiC and 3.26 eV for 4H-SiC). It
is known that 6H-SiC exhibits strong anisotropy in carrier
transport, and the electron mobility along the 〈0001〉 direction
is unusually low, about 100 cm2 V−1 s−1, even in a high-purity
material.20) The narrow width of the conduction band in
6H-SiC also helps to increase the breakdown electric field
strength for 6H-SiC〈0001〉. The breakdown field strength for
6H-SiCh1120i is only half of that for 6H-SiC〈0001〉.61) The
anisotropy in the breakdown field strength for 4H-SiC is
smaller, and the field strength for 4H-SiCh1120i  is only
20–25% lower than that for 4H-SiC〈0001〉. 62,63)
Note that the
breakdown field strength is also slightly anisotropic in Si and
gallium arsenide (GaAs).
The breakdown field strength is a convenient physical
property to use for estimating the ideal breakdown voltage.
However, the breakdown field strength is valid only for
junctions with non-punch-through structures. When consid-
ering punch-through structures, which are common in power
devices, the breakdown field strength shown in Fig. 11
does not give the correct breakdown voltage. In this
case, simulation of the leakage current or calculation of
the ionization integral using a device simulator is required
to determine the ideal breakdown voltage.4) To this end,
accurate determination of the impact ionization coefficients in
SiC has been investigated.64,65)
5. Impurity doping during crystal growth
In SiC, nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P) is employed for
n-type doping, while aluminum (Al) is used for p-type
doping. Although boron (B) was also previously employed as
an acceptor, it is currently not preferred because of its large
ionization energy (∼300 meV),66) its abnormal diffusion,66–68)
and the generation of a boron-related deep level (D
center).66,67) Although gallium and arsenic work as acceptors
and donors, respectively, their ionization energies are
relatively large and their solubility limits are low. Nitrogen
substitutes at carbon sublattice sites, while phosphorus,
aluminum, and boron substitute at silicon sublattice sites.
The ionization energies and solubility limits of nitrogen,
phosphorus, aluminum, and boron in 4H-SiC are listed in
Table II.66,69–76) In SiC, the ionization energies for dopants
depend on the lattice site, in particular, whether the site is
hexagonal or cubic (site effect).69) In the case of nitrogen or
phosphorus doping, the ionization energy for the donors is
relatively small, and the ionization ratio for donors at room
temperature is reasonably high, ranging from about 80% to
nearly 100%, depending on the doping density. Conversely,
the ionization energy for aluminum is large (200 meV), and
incomplete ionization (5–30%) of acceptors is observed at
room temperature. Note that the ionization energy decreases
when the doping density is increased as a result of bandgap
040103-7
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
Table II. Ionization energies and solubility limits of nitrogen (N),
phosphorus (P), aluminum (Al), and boron (B) in SiC.66,69–76) For N, P, and
Al, the ionization energies at the hexagonal=cubic sites are indicated.
N P Al B (shallow)
Ionization energy (meV) 61=126 60=120 198=201 280–300
Solubility limit (cm−3) 2 × 1020 (∼1 × 1021) 1 × 1021 2 × 1019
shrinkage and the formation of an impurity band. Above a
dopant density of 1019 cm−3, the ionization energy decreases
sharply. As a result, near-perfect ionization is observed in
heavily aluminum-doped SiC (>4 × 1020 cm−3) despite the
relatively large ionization energy of aluminum.77,78)
In general, one can observe a similar trend in dopant
incorporation irrespective of the SiC growth technique:
nitrogen incorporation is significantly higher for growth on
ð0001Þ than on (0001), and the opposite tendency [higher on
(0001)] is true for aluminum incorporation. This polarity
effect originates from the surface kinetics during growth.
Because nitrogen substitutes at carbon lattice sites, a nitrogen
atom adsorbed onto a ð0001Þ  surface is bound to three
underlying silicon atoms, while it is only bound to one silicon
atom on a (0001) surface. Thus, the desorption of nitrogen
atoms from ð0001Þ  is presumably much less extensive than
from (0001) (note that the nitrogen vapor pressure is very
high at the growth temperature of SiC). This may be the main
reason why nitrogen incorporation is higher on ð0001Þ.  79)
The higher aluminum incorporation on (0001) can be
explained in a similar manner, taking account of the
substitution of aluminum at the silicon lattice site.
Impurity incorporation is also influenced by the C=Si ratio
in the growth ambient, which was first reported in the CVD
of SiC (site competition effect).80,81) The site competition
effect discovered by Larkin and coworkers is the key to
achieving wide-range doping control in SiC. The doping
efficiency of nitrogen is enhanced markedly under Si-rich
(low C=Si ratio) conditions and reduced under C-rich (high
C=Si ratio) conditions. This phenomenon can be explained by
the competition between nitrogen and carbon atoms on the
growing surface. Low carbon atom coverage on the growing
surface promotes nitrogen incorporation into the lattice, while
high carbon atom coverage prevents (“outcompetes”) nitro-
gen incorporation. Conversely, the doping of aluminum and
boron, which substitute at silicon lattice sites, shows the
opposite trend: aluminum and boron incorporation is sup-
pressed under Si-rich conditions and promoted under C-rich
conditions.
For vertical device fabrication, low-resistivity n-type
wafers (substrates) are essential, as indicated in Fig. 7. At
present, the standard technique for SiC bulk growth is the
seeded sublimation (or modified Lely) method,28) the details
of which have been described in several review papers.82–84)
Because no stoichiometric SiC liquid phase exists, it is
impossible to employ congruent melt growth for SiC bulk
growth at technically feasible system pressures. Instead, SiC
sublimes at very high temperatures (>1800–2000 °C), which
is the key process for source supply during the seeded sub-
limation method. The net doping density of undoped boules
grown by this technique ranges from mid 1015 to low 1016
cm−3. The nitrogen density can be increased to 1020 cm−3,
which results in a very low resistivity of 0.005 Ω cm.85) The
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015) INVITED REVIEW PAPER

Table III. Basic information on major extended defects in SiC epitaxial layers.
Typical density
Extended defects Burgers vector Major direction
(cm−2)
Micropipe n〈0001〉 (n > 2) 〈0001〉 0–0.02
TSD n〈0001〉 (n = 1, 2) 〈0001〉 300–1000
TED 
h1120i=3 〈0001〉 2000–5000
BPD 
h1120i=3 
in {0001} plane (predominantly h1120i) 0.1–10

Shockley: h1100i=3
SF in {0001} plane 0.1–1
Frank: 〈0001〉=n
TSD: threading screw dislocation, TED: threading edge dislocation, BPD: basal plane dislocation, SF: stacking fault.

SiC CVD and pressure are fixed, the N2 flow rate and C=Si ratio are
growth temperature: 1600 °C important parameters in achieving the wide-range control of
Net Donor Density (cm )

nitrogen doping (1 × 1014–2 × 1019 cm−3). A growth simu-

-3

1016 growth rate: 20-25 μm/h

1015
1014
1013 Si face
1012
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
C/Si Ratio
Fig. 12. C=Si ratio dependence of the doping density of nominally
 epitaxial layers grown by hot-wall CVD at
undoped SiC(0001) and ð0001Þ
1600 °C.
typical resistivities of commercial n-type SiC wafers range
from about 0.018 to 0.025 Ω cm (nitrogen dopant density
range: 6 × 1018–1.2 × 1019 cm−3).
For the development of SiC power devices, epitaxial growth
is essential to produce active layers with the desired doping
density and thickness, and homoepitaxial growth technology
by CVD has shown remarkable progress.86–89) Through
process optimization and the purification of source materials,
the purity of nominally undoped (or unintentionally doped)
SiC epitaxial layers can be increased to a very high level. For
obvious reasons, the main source of unintentional dopants is
nitrogen. Key ways to obtain high purity are (1) increase the
C=Si ratio80,81) and (2) decrease the growth pressure.90,91)
Figure 12 shows the C=Si ratio dependence of the doping
density of nominally undoped SiC{0001} epitaxial layers
grown by hot-wall CVD at 1600 °C. For a C=Si ratio of 0.5,
the donor density is about 5 × 1015 cm−3, irrespective of the
substrate polarity. On the (0001) face, the donor density can be
drastically reduced by increasing the C=Si ratio; for example,
it reaches 5 × 1012 cm−3 for growth with a C=Si ratio of 2. A
further increase in the C=Si ratio causes a switch of the con-
duction type from n-type to p-type in the nominally undoped
epitaxial layers. Here, p-type materials are obtained by
reducing nitrogen incorporation and enhancing aluminum or
boron incorporation, which is consistent with the site com-
petition concept. On the ð0001Þ  face, however, the C=Si ratio
dependence of the doping density is weaker,92) and the lowest
donor density is about 8 × 1014 cm−3 in this particular case.
In situ n-type doping is easily achieved by the introduction
of N2 during CVD growth. When the growth temperature
lation taking account of gas-phase and surface reactions gives
C face
the real C=Si ratio on the growing surface instead of that at
the gas inlet. It is found that the real C=Si ratio on the surface
is a good measure for explaining reactor-dependent impurity
incorporation in a systematic manner.93)
The addition of a small amount of trimethylaluminum
flip to p-type
[TMA: Al(CH3)3] is effective for in situ p-type doping in SiC
CVD.94) The accessible range of aluminum doping is from
about 2 × 1014 to 5 × 1020 cm−3 on SiC(0001). The very high
2.0 2.5
aluminum doping (5 × 1020 cm−3) results in the formation
of degenerate p-type SiC with a resistivity as low as 16.5
mΩ cm.95) It has been reported that heavily-doped p-type
layers can only be grown easily on the Si face; growing them
on the C face is difficult.32) When the TMA supply is high,
growth on the C face suffers from two- or three-dimensional
nucleation, leading to a rough surface. Thus, the range of dop-
ing control is wider in both n- and p-type doping for growth
on the Si face than on the C face, which is one of the reasons
why the (0001) face (Si face) is rather exclusively employed
for the epitaxial growth and device fabrication of SiC.
6. Extended defects in SiC
SiC epitaxial wafers employed for device fabrication contain
a variety of crystal imperfections, both extended defects and
point defects. Most extended defects in an epitaxial layer
are replicated from the underlying substrate (bulk wafer),
but some are generated during epitaxial growth. On the
other hand, almost all point defects in an epitaxial layer are
unaffected by the substrate quality, being determined instead
by the epitaxial growth conditions. However, additional
extended and point defects are generated during device
processing steps such as ion implantation and dry etching. It
is essential to understand and control these defects to ensure
the high performance and reliability of SiC power devices.
Basic information on the major extended defects in SiC
epitaxial layers can be found in Table III. Since most dis-
locations in SiC epitaxial layers originate from the substrates,
the classification of major dislocations in SiC boule crystals
will be briefly described in the next section. This will be
followed by a discussion of the replication and conversion of
dislocations as well as the generation of additional extended
defects during epitaxial growth.
6.1 Dislocations in SiC boule crystals
A micropipe defect is a hollow core associated with a super-
screw dislocation.96,97) The magnitude of the Burgers vector
040103-8 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
extra (or missing) half plane
C C
TED
c b
B {0001} B {0001}
b b
A
a3 BPD A’
a2
a1 b = 1 [1120] b = 1 [1120]
3 3
TED: threading edge dislocation
BPD: basal plane dislocation
(a) (b)
Fig. 13. (a) Schematic illustration of an extra (or missing) half plane in a
SiC crystal. In this case, a dislocation with a Burgers vector of ½1120=3
exists along the edge of the extra half plane. (b) Typical configuration of
threading edge and basal plane dislocations, where the basal plane
 directions.
dislocation lies along one of the h1120i
for micropipes has been investigated; the minimum values
were found to be ∣3c∣ for 4H-SiC and ∣2c∣ for 6H-SiC (c:
fundamental translation vector along the c-axis),98,99) both of
which correspond to 3 nm. Because a micropipe is a micron-
or submicron-size pinhole extending along the 〈0001〉 direc-
tion through the entire SiC wafer, it is not surprising that SiC
devices that contain a micropipe exhibit severely degraded
performance, such as an excessive leakage current and
premature breakdown.100) Thus, micropipes were identified
as the most important killer defects and were eliminated or
reduced to a satisfactory level (<0.1 cm−2).
Although a threading screw dislocation (TSD) in com-
pound semiconductors usually creates a spiral with a one-
bilayer-height step on {111} (or {0001}) faces, the step
height of a spiral in 4H-SiC{0001} is four Si–C bilayers,
corresponding to ∣1c∣. (The step often splits into two two-
bilayer-height spiral steps.) TSDs in SiC propagate nearly
along the 〈0001〉 direction but occasionally they are bent
towards the basal planes (and sometimes bent back towards
〈0001〉).101) Recent studies using synchrotron X-ray top-
ography revealed that the majority of TSDs possess a Burgers
vector of 1c + a.102,103) This means that these TSDs are not
pure screw dislocations, but mixed dislocations.
A threading edge dislocation (TED) and basal plane
dislocation (BPD) possess the same Burgers vector of a

(h1120i=3). 
A slip of h1120i=3 results in the formation of an
extra half plane or a missing half plane while keeping the

stacking structure. Conversely, a slip of h1100i=3 causes a
fault in the stacking. This kind of defect is called a Shockley-
type stacking fault (SSF)104) and plays an important role in
bipolar degradation phenomena, as described in Sect. 6.5.
Figure 13(a) illustrates an extra (or missing) half plane in
a SiC crystal. In this case, a dislocation with a Burgers

vector of ½1120=3 is present along the edge of the extra half
plane. As seen from the figure, the dislocation lying in the
basal plane (line AB) is defined as a “basal plane dislocation”
(pure edge-type), and the dislocation lying along the 〈0001〉
direction (line BC) is defined as a “threading edge dis-
location”. Therefore, a BPD and TED have the same basic
nature; the name simply differs depending on the dislocation
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
TSD TSD TSD Frank SFs BPD BPD BPD TED
(> 99 %) (< 1 %) (< 5 %) (> 95 %)
epitaxial
b layer
BPD
ow
step fl TED
substrate
TSD
TED TED
{0001} basal plane (~ 100 %)
TSD: threading screw dislocation
TED: threading edge dislocation
BPD: basal plane dislocation
Fig. 14. Replication and conversion of dislocations typically observed in
SiC epitaxial layers grown on off-axis {0001} by CVD.

direction. Indeed, BPD-to-TED and TED-to-BPD conver-
sions are commonly observed inside boule crystals.101,105)
Note that pure edge-type BPDs are not very abundant, and
 directions, as shown
quite often, BPDs lie along the h1120i
in Fig. 13(b), due to the Peierls potential. In this particular
case [Fig. 13(b)], the BPD (line AAB) is a 60° dislocation.
The dominant nucleation process of BPDs is plastic defor-
mation caused by thermal stress, which is typically induced
by temperature inhomogeneity during crystal growth or a
high-temperature process. In this case, BPDs can nucleate
heterogeneously as half-loops from the crystal surface or as
full-loops inside the crystal.106)
In the last two decades, extensive studies have been
conducted, aiming at reducing extended defects in SiC
boules, and one of the most striking techniques is the so-
called “Repeated A–Face growth (RAF)” method.107) The
main concept is (i) the preparation of an almost dislocation-
free seed by repeating boule growth on ð1120Þ  and ð1100Þ
faces, and (ii) subsequent sublimation growth on the high-
quality seed under stabilized conditions, the details of
which are described in Ref. 107. An impressively low total
dislocation density of 75 cm−2 was achieved through this
technique. More recently, a “dislocation-free” SiC boule
has been fabricated by solution growth using a similar
concept.108) However, the total dislocation density of com-
mercial wafers is still 3000–6000 cm−2. The stacking fault
density in commercial SiC wafers is currently very low
(below 1 cm−1).
6.2 Dislocations in SiC epitaxial layers
Figure 14 illustrates the dislocation replication and conver-
sion typically observed in SiC epitaxial layers grown on
off-axis {0001} by CVD.87,109) Almost all the TSDs in a
substrate are replicated in an epilayer, but a small portion
(typically < 1%) are converted to Frank-type partial disloca-
tions.110) A TSD in the substrate can act as a nucleation site
for a “carrot defect”, as described in Sect. 6.3. Almost all the
TEDs in a substrate are also replicated in an epilayer.
The behavior of BPDs during epitaxial growth is much
more complicated. A BPD is a detrimental defect for
SiC bipolar devices because it can act as the source of a
Shockley-type stacking fault upon carrier injection, which
would locally reduce the carrier lifetime (increase on-
040103-9 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
resistance) and increase the leakage current.111–113) This is
called “bipolar degradation”, and is treated in a separate sub-
section (Sect. 6.5). Since the elastic energy of a dislocation is
naturally proportional to the dislocation length, BPD replica-
tion in an epitaxial layer grown on off-axis {0001} results in
a large increase in the elastic energy. This energy is greatly
decreased by a BPD-to-TED conversion, during which the
dislocation length is shortened considerably by a factor of
cot θ (θ: off-angle). This dislocation conversion can be
explained by a so-called “image force” exerted on the
BPD.104) In reality, most (>95%) BPDs in the substrate are
converted to TEDs within a few µm of the initial epitaxial
layer without any special treatment.114–116) Some BPDs,
however, are replicated in the SiC epitaxial layer. It has been
discovered that all these BPDs propagating in basal planes
of an epitaxial layer are of a screw character.87,117,118) It is
known that a perfect BPD in SiC is dissociated into two
partial dislocations, and a single SSF is created between
the two partials, where the SSF width is about 30–70 nm.119)
Conversion from BPDs to TEDs is enhanced by several
techniques such as molten KOH etching120,121) or H2
etching122) prior to epitaxial growth or interruption during
growth.123) The use of a substrate with a smaller off-angle
is naturally effective in enhancing the conversion owing to
the increased image force.124) High-temperature (∼1800 °C)
annealing in Ar induces a spontaneous BPD-to-TED con-
version near the surface (without growth).125) Furthermore,
increasing the growth rate also effectively enhances the
BPD–TED conversion.126) By combining these techniques,
the conversion ratio has been increased to 99.9% or even
higher. Thus, if the BPD density in a substrate is 1000 cm−2,
the density of BPDs replicated in an epitaxial layer is about
1 cm−2 or less. It should be noted that BPDs easily glide
during growth or high-temperature annealing under stress
(misfit and thermal stress) because the critical resolved shear
stress in SiC is relatively low, especially at high temper-
ature.127) A BPD replicated in an epitaxial layer is deflected
to the direction normal to the step flow, and the BPD often
lies near the interface between a lightly-doped epitaxial layer
and a heavily-doped substrate.128,129) Such a BPD lying at
the epitaxial layer=substrate interface is called an “interface
dislocation”.
Dislocations in SiC have been detected by molten alkali
(e.g., KOH) etching at about 500 °C130) or X-ray topography.
In recent years, a photoluminescence (PL) mapping or
imaging technique has been developed as a fast nondestruc-
tive method to detect the location of dislocations and identify
their type (TSD=TED=BPD).131–136) Figure 15 shows (a) a
typical PL image taken from a 180-µm-thick n-type SiC(0001)
epitaxial layer at 880 nm and (b) an optical micrograph of the
same location after molten KOH etching. In PL images taken
at the band-edge emission (390 nm), threading dislocations
and BPDs appear as dark spots and dark lines (or curves)
(not shown), respectively. In contrast, an infrared PL image
shows bright spots and bright lines (or curves), which have
been identified as the locations of threading dislocations and
BPDs, respectively, as shown in Fig. 15(b). TSDs produce
much more intense PL in the infrared region (750–900 nm)
than TEDs, which makes it possible to distinguish TSDs and
TEDs. While the mechanism of the infrared luminescence
from dislocations is unclear at present, localized states that are
040103-10
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
Photoluminescence (PL) image Optical image after KOH etching
TED
BPD TED
TED
TSD
TSD
TED
100 μm
step-flow ([1120] off)
(a) (b)
Fig. 15. (Color online) (a) Typical PL image taken from a 180-µm-thick
n-type SiC(0001) epitaxial layer at 880 nm. (b) Optical photograph of the
same location after molten KOH etching.
Photoluminescence (PL) image
455 nm 480 nm 500 nm
(d) Optical image PL intensity
(arb. unit)
step-flow
([1120] off)
Fig. 16. (Color online) PL intensity maps taken for a SiC epitaxial layer
at wavelengths of (a) 455, (b) 480, and (c) 500 nm from the same location
(reproduced with permission from Elsevier).142) (d) Optical microscope
image taken at the same location.
generated near the dislocation cores137) may be responsible for
the luminescence. PL imaging=mapping is also a powerful
method for the detection of stacking faults, as described in the
next subsection.
6.3 In-grown stacking faults and other defects in epitaxial
layers
The nucleation of stacking faults (SFs) takes place during
epitaxial growth, even if the substrate is free of stacking
faults. So far, several types of “in-grown SFs” have been
identified by cross-sectional transmission electron microsco-
py (TEM). A majority of these SFs are caused by slips in
basal planes (Shockley-type). Note that most in-grown SFs
are invisible in optical microscopy, and PL imaging=mapping
is again a powerful method to detect these defects.138–142)
Figure 16 shows examples of PL intensity maps taken at
(a) 455, (b) 480, and (c) 500 nm from the same location.142)
An optical micrograph is shown as well [Fig. 16(d)]. The
shape of these SFs that show a PL peak at 455 nm is a right-
angle triangle with its apex pointed towards the upstream side
of the step flow. Conversely, the shape of the SF that shows
480 nm emission is an isosceles triangle elongated along
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015) INVITED REVIEW PAPER

Cross-sectional TEM (a) Carrot Defect (b) Triangular Defect

2 2 2
2 2 2

4 5
6
4 [0001]
3 2
2 2 2
2 2 2
200 μm
2 2 2
(c) Down-Fall
(a) (b) (c)
step-flow
( [1120] off )
Fig. 17. (Color online) High-resolution TEM images taken from the
major in-grown SFs that exhibit PL peaks at (a) 455, (b) 480, and (c) 500 nm
(reproduced with permission from Elsevier).142) The stacking sequences have
been determined as (44), (53), and (62) types, respectively, in Zhdanov’s
notation.

Fig. 18. (Color online) Typical surface defects observed in SiC{0001}

homoepitaxial layers, (a) “carrot” defect and shallow pit, (b) triangular
defect, and (c) down-fall.

Table IV. Current understanding of effects of extended defects on SiC device performance and reliability.
SBD MOSFET, JFET PiN, BJT, Thyristor, IGBT
TSD Noa), but causes local
No Noa)
(without pit) reduction of carrier lifetime
TED Noa), but causes local
No Noa)
(without pit) reduction of carrier lifetime
BPD Noa), but can cause Bipolar degradation
No
(including interface dislocation, half-loop array) degradation of body diode (increase of on-resistance and leakage current)
VB reduction VB reduction VB reduction
In-grown SF
(20–50%) (20–50%) (20–50%)
Carrot, triangular VB reduction VB reduction VB reduction
defects (30–70%) (30–70%) (30–70%)
VB reduction VB reduction VB reduction
Down-fall
(50–90%) (50–90%) (50–90%)
a) Impacts on gate-oxide reliability are still under investigation.

the off-direction. The lengths of all these SFs along the off-
direction agree with the projected length of a basal plane in
the epitaxial layer. This implies that these SFs nucleated in
the initial stage of epitaxial growth. Although the misalign-
ment of atoms during step-flow growth has been suggested as
the nucleation mechanism for SFs,143) the detailed mechan-
ism is not entirely clear at present. Figure 17 shows high-
resolution TEM images taken from the major in-grown SFs
that exhibit PL peaks at (a) 455, (b) 480, and (c) 500 nm.142)
These stacking sequences have been determined to be types
(44), (53), and (62), respectively, in Zhdanov’s notation.
A one-to-one correlation has been established between the
PL peak position and the stacking sequence. Frank-type in-
grown stacking faults have also been reported.144) The
density of these in-grown stacking faults is typically 0.1–1
cm−2 but tends to increase in fast epitaxy.143)
SiC epitaxial layers grown on off-axis {0001} substrates
occasionally exhibit several types of surface defects, most of
which contain some kind of extended defect(s). Figure 18
shows the typical surface defects observed in SiC{0001}
homoepitaxial layers: (a) “carrot” defect145–147) and shallow
pit,148,149) (b) triangular defect,150,151) and (c) down-fall.
Although the exact formation mechanisms of these defects
are not fully understood, these defects are usually created
by technical problems such as the incomplete removal of
040103-11
polishing damage or non-optimized growth processes. The
down-fall is generated by the falling of a SiC particle released
from the susceptor wall. The density of these defects is
mostly influenced by the surface quality of the substrates and
the growth conditions. TEM studies revealed that the carrot
(and comet) defects contain both a basal plane fault and a
prismatic plane fault.145–147) The triangular defects exhibit a
variety of structures. In some triangular defects, the triangular
region is actually cubic SiC (3C-SiC), while in others, only a
3C-like laminar region with a thickness of several Si–C
bilayers is extended in the basal plane.150,151) Several other
types of surface morphological defects that contain extended
defects have been reported.152)
6.4 Impacts of extended defects on SiC devices
Extended defects can affect the performance and reliability of
semiconductor devices.153) However, the effects of extended
defects in SiC are still not well understood. This subsection
will summarize our current understanding of the effects of
extended defects on SiC device performance and reliability
(Table IV).
All kinds of macroscopic defects that are generated during
epitaxial growth cause a considerable increase in leakage
current and reduction in blocking voltage, and are detrimental
to SiC devices.12,154) These defects include triangular defects,
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
Leakage Current (A/cm2) 10-5
Ni/4H-SiC SBD
10-6 (N = 85)
-7
10
-8
10
0 5 10
Number of TSDs inside devices
Fig. 19. Leakage current density of 800-V-class Ni=SiC Schottky barrier
diodes at −600 V versus the number of TSDs present in the diode area. No
obvious correlation between the leakage current and TSDs is observed.
carrot defects, and macro-defects induced by particles
(“down-falls”). These defects usually contain stacking faults
in a basal plane and=or a prismatic plane or contain a 3C-
lamella, as described in the previous subsection. The density
of these defects is typically 0.1–1 cm−2 and tends to be higher
in thick epitaxial layers.
In-grown stacking faults also cause increased leakage
current and reduce the blocking voltage of SiC devices. It
has been predicted that the bandgap is locally reduced at an
in-grown stacking fault.139,155) When SiC SBDs contain an
in-grown stacking fault, the barrier height is locally reduced,
leading to excessive leakage currents.156)
The effects of TSDs and TEDs on device characteristics
have been investigated by many research groups, and some
conflicting results have been reported. Neudeck et al.
reported the effects of a TSD on SiC(0001) pn diodes by
direct comparison between the diode characteristics and the
dislocation sites as determined by synchrotron X-ray top-
ography.157) When a diode contained one TSD, the leakage
current abruptly increased at a bias voltage slightly lower
than the breakdown voltage. Along with the increase in
leakage current, a microplasma was simultaneously observed
at the location of the TSD. However, the breakdown voltage
itself was hardly affected by the presence of a single TSD.
Extensive comparisons between the characteristics of SiC
SBDs and their dislocation sites have also been conducted
by several groups.158,159) However, no direct evidence was
obtained for the negative effects of TSDs and TEDs on diode
characteristics. An example of such results is shown in
Fig. 19. The leakage current of Ni=SiC SBDs containing
15–20 TSDs is almost identical to that of TSD-free diodes.
Many groups have found that the impact of TSDs and TEDs
on the characteristics of SiC pn diodes was negligibly small.
In recent years, the SiC community has learned that
surface pits can be formed at TSD and TED sites. The depth
of these pits is typically 3–20 nm, and the pits are deeper
for TSDs than for TEDs.160) When the pits are created, local
electric field crowding occurs, simply because of a geometric
effect.161) Fujiwara et al. found that the negative effects of
TSDs on the diode characteristics could be eliminated almost
entirely by suppressing the formation of dislocation-induced
pits.162) Figure 20 shows the reverse characteristics of SiC
SBDs fabricated on wafers (a) with surface pits associated
with dislocations and (b) without such pits.162) It was con-
firmed that the locations of excessive leakage current for the
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
(cross-sectional TEM image)
Schottky electrode
V = - 600 V
nanopit n-SiC
Leakage Current (A/cm2)
dislocation
500 nm
15 20
with nanopits
Reverse Voltage (V)
(a)
Leakage Current (A/cm2)
with dislocations but
without nano-pits
Reverse Voltage (V)
(b)
Fig. 20. (Color online) Reverse characteristics of SiC SBDs fabricated on
wafers with (a) surface pits associated with dislocations and (b) without such
pits.162) After removing the surface pits, all the diodes exhibit low leakage
current, regardless of the number of dislocations present in the diodes
(reproduced with permission from AIP Publishing LLC).
diodes shown in Fig. 20(a) exactly matched the surface pits.
Upon removing these pits, however, all the diodes exhibited a
low leakage current regardless of the number of dislocations
present inside the diode area. The size and depth of these
dislocation-induced pits strongly depend on the growth
conditions and processing conditions. This may be the main
reason why different groups have observed somewhat
different results for the effects of dislocations. As described
above, the negative effects of dislocation-induced pits can be
minimized to a satisfactory level by suppressing pit formation
or by preparing pit-free surfaces via polishing.
To isolate the effects of dislocations (without surface pits)
on SiC devices, the change in the electronic states near the
dislocation cores must be taken into account. Chung et al.
conducted electron holography measurements on TSDs in
n-type SiC and reported that a deep state (Ec − 0.89 eV) was
formed near a TSD core.137) Because the chemical bonds near
a dislocation core are severely distorted (or broken), which
is a major disturbance in the periodic potential inherent to
SiC, localized states and=or local changes in the bandgap are
expected to occur near the dislocation core.153) The states
associated with these dislocations must, of course, be active
under high electric fields, making them potential candidates
for excessive leakage current. The total leakage current of a
040103-12 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
4H-SiC pn diodes
80
60 without epi-induced defects
40 (N = 86)
20
0
Probability (%)
80
60 with a carrot defect
40 (N = 19)
20
0 epitaxially induced defects have a detrimental effect on SiC
80
60 with a triangular defect
40 (N = 14)
20
0 damaging these defects are. This is the main reason why a
80
60 with a down-fall
40 (N = 12)
20
0 in state-of-the-art SiC epitaxial wafers are not TSDs or TEDs
0 500 1000 1500
Breakdown Voltage (V)
Fig. 21. Histograms of breakdown voltage of 1500-V-class SiC pn diodes
which contain major epitaxially induced defects. “Carrot” defects, triangular
defects, and down-falls have a detrimental impact on the breakdown voltage.
SiC junction (Ileakage) can be obtained roughly using the
following equation:
X
n negative effects can be minimized by removing the surface
Ileakage ¼ I0 þ Igen þ Ii ðdislocationÞ;
i duced defects are far more detrimental to the dielectric prop-
where I0 is the ideal leakage current determined for a defect-
free SiC junction and Igen is the generation current, which is
dominated by bulk carrier generation via deep levels and by
surface carrier generation via surface states. Ii (dislocation) is
the leakage (generation) current induced by the ith dislocation
inside the junction. The ideal leakage current (I0) of a pn diode
is proportional to n2i (ni: intrinsic carrier density), while the
generation current due to point defects, surface states, and
dislocations is basically proportional to ni.53,153) Because of
the very low intrinsic carrier density of SiC (∼10−9 cm−3 at
300 K), the ideal leakage current (I0) of SiC pn diodes is
estimated to be in the 10−40 A=cm2 range or lower. Thus, the
observed leakage current of SiC pn diodes is clearly governed
by the generation current (via the point defects, surface states,
and dislocations).12,154) The dominant leakage path depends
on the densities of the defects (point defects, surface states,
and dislocations). As indicated by Eq. (2), each dislocation
(TSD or TED) adds a small component of generation current
to the leakage current, but these dislocations do not have a
detrimental effect on SiC devices because of their relatively
low density in state-of-the-art SiC epitaxial wafers. Carrier
generation at dislocation sites must become significant when
the electric field strength is high, for example, higher than
3 MV=cm. Therefore, leakage current through dislocations
will be pronounced for low-voltage (<300 V) devices,157)
where the maximum electric field strength can exceed 3
MV=cm. For relatively high-voltage (>1 kV) devices, where
the electric field strength does not exceed 3 MV=cm (because
the breakdown electric field strength decreases with decreas-
ing the doping density, as shown in Fig. 11), the third term in
Eq. (2) is small and can only be unacceptably large when the
dislocation density is very high (≫106 cm−2), as in the case
of heteroepitaxially grown materials.
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
It is often found that when the device area is scaled up,
the leakage current density for SiC devices increases signi-
ficantly while the breakdown voltage decreases. In such large
devices, the probability that the device contains macroscopic
defects generated by epitaxial growth (triangular defects,
carrot defects, in-grown stacking faults, and down-falls)
increases. Indeed, many groups have observed that these
devices. Figure 21 shows histograms of the breakdown
voltage of 1500-V-class SiC pn diodes containing such
epitaxially induced defects. One can immediately see how
larger number of devices exhibit a high leakage current
density and low breakdown voltage as the device area is
scaled up. Therefore, the most critical device-killing defects
but ultimately these epitaxially induced defects. Improvement
of the epitaxial process of SiC is strongly required to achieve
a high yield in fabrication of large-area devices.
The correlation between gate-oxide reliability and the
dislocations in SiC has also been investigated. In earlier
studies, it was found that TSDs and BPDs severely degrade
the oxide reliability (reduction of the mean failure time under
high electric fields or reduction of the charge-to-break-
down).163–166) A more recent study has found that these
ð2Þ pits created at the dislocation sites.167) The epitaxially in-
erties of gate oxides than threading dislocations. However,
the impact of dislocations on oxide reliability has not been
fully clarified, and careful investigations are required before a
definitive conclusion can be reached.
BPDs, on the other hand, are clearly detrimental to all
types of SiC bipolar devices because upon carrier injection,
BPDs cause the phenomenon of bipolar degradation.111,112)
All kinds of BPDs (including interface dislocations128) and
the basal plane segment of a dislocation half-loop) act as
nucleation sites for SSFs upon minority-carrier injection and
recombination,112,168) as described in the next subsection.
Assuming a uniform distribution of device-killing defects,
the yield (Y ), which is defined as the number of good devices
divided by the number of fabricated devices, can be obtained
approximately using the following equation:169)
Y ¼ expðDAÞ; ð3Þ
where D and A are the device-killing defect density and the
device area, respectively. Figure 22 plots the device yield
versus the device area calculated from Eq. (3) by varying the
device-killing defect density (D) as a parameter. In the figure,
rough values of the rated current are indicated on the upper
horizontal axis, assuming a current density of 200 A=cm2.
If the device-killing defect density is 10 cm−2, then to attain a
high yield of 80%, the maximum device area must be smaller
than 2 mm2, which corresponds to a maximum rated current
of only 4 A. To fabricate 100 A devices (device area ≈50
mm2) with a yield of 80%, the device-killing defect density
must be reduced to 0.4 cm−2. On the basis of the above
discussion, the main device-killing defects in state-of-the-art
SiC epitaxial wafers can thus be assumed to be epitaxially
induced defects (including triangular defects, carrot defects,
in-grown stacking faults, and particles) for unipolar devices,
040103-13 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015) INVITED REVIEW PAPER

Current (A) (J = 200 A/cm 2) initial after stress

200
10 20 100 200
100

Current Density (A/cm )

2
D = 0.1 cm-2
150
Device Yield (%)

80
D = 0.5 cm-2
100
60
D = 5 cm-2
40 D = 1 cm-2 50
D = 10 cm-2

D = 50 cm-2
20 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
D = 100 cm-2
0 0 Forward Voltage (V)
10 101 102 (a)
Device Area (mm 2)
(D: density of device-killing defects) 5.0
2
4H-SiC PiN, J = 100 A/cm

Forward Voltage Drop (V)

Fig. 22. (Color online) Device yield versus device area calculated from 4.5
Eq. (3) by varying the device-killing defect density (D) as a parameter.

and both epitaxially induced defects and BPDs for bipolar
devices. However, much more extensive studies are required
to elucidate all aspects of defect electronics in SiC.
6.5 Bipolar degradation
After carrier injection (or excitation) followed by carrier
recombination in SiC, the nucleation and expansion of a
SSF takes place at the location of a BPD or at a basal plane
segment of other dislocations.111,112) The expanded SSF
causes a significant reduction in the carrier lifetime and also
the formation of potential barriers for carrier transport,
leading to an increase in the forward voltage drop in SiC
bipolar devices such as PiN diodes, BJTs, and thyristors.
The expanded SSF also acts as a severe leakage current path
in a reverse-biased junction. These observations are due to a
phenomenon called “bipolar degradation”, which is detri-
mental to the reliability of SiC-based bipolar devices. Note
that pure SiC unipolar devices such as SBDs do not exhibit
this degradation because of the absence of carrier injection.
A comprehensive review of bipolar degradation in SiC is
available in the literature.112)
Figure 23 shows examples of bipolar degradation ob-
served in SiC PiN diodes: (a) the forward current–voltage
characteristics and (b) the change in the forward voltage drop
at 100 A=cm2 as a function of the stress time. In this experi-
ment, the diodes were stressed under a constant current (100
A=cm2). The forward voltage drop exhibits irregular in-
creases at several different times, reaching 6 V or even higher
in some diodes. A low current density of 1–10 A=cm2 is
sufficient to cause this degradation. In a degraded PiN diode,
multiple dark triangular (or trapezoidal) regions, which corre-
spond to expanded stacking fault planes, are observed in
near-band-edge PL or cathodoluminescence (CL) images.111)
On the other hand, the stacking-fault regions exhibit a
distinctive luminescence with a peak wavelength of 424 nm
at room temperature.170)
The exact stacking structure of expanded stacking faults
has been identified by cross-sectional TEM.171) Figure 24
shows (a) a high-resolution TEM image of the fault region of
a 4H-SiC(0001) PiN diode and schematics of the stacking
040103-14
4.0
3.5
3.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Stress Time (min)
(b)
Fig. 23. Examples of bipolar degradation observed in SiC PiN diodes.
(a) Forward current–voltage characteristics and (b) change in the forward
voltage drop at 100 A=cm2 as a function of the stress time. In this experiment,
the diodes were stressed under a constant current (100 A=cm2).
sequence of (b) the observed structure and (c) perfect 4H-
SiC. The stacking fault can be denoted by the (31) structure
using Zhdanov’s notation, while perfect 4H-SiC has the (22)
structure. The energy position of the electronic states formed
by this type of SSF in 4H-SiC is calculated to be Ec − 0.22
eV,172) which is consistent with the luminescence result.
The expansion of SSFs occurs because the activation
energy for the glide motion of the partial dislocations is
significantly reduced by the energy transfer in the electron–
hole recombination process. Thus, this phenomenon is not
only observed during the on-state operation of SiC bipolar
devices but also during PL or CL measurements. In real SiC
bipolar devices, however, the morphology of the expanded
SSFs is influenced by the device structure. In SiC PiN
(p+=i=n+ structure) diodes, for example, carrier recombina-
tion mainly occurs within the lightly-doped i-region, where
a high-density electron–hole plasma is created by forward
biasing. (Carrier recombination also occurs inside the p+-
anode and n+-cathode, roughly within a distance equivalent
to the diffusion length of minority carriers in individual
highly-doped regions.) Therefore, the expansion of the SSFs
almost ends when the fronts of the gliding partials reach
the p+=i or i=n+ interface. Schematic illustrations of SSF
expansion from a BPD in an epitaxial layer replicated from a
substrate are shown in Fig. 25. In this figure, a screw-type

BPD (b ¼ ½1120=3, 
dislocation line ∥ ½1120) in a SiC PiN
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015) INVITED REVIEW PAPER

p+
n–
BPD
(replicated in an n+
A’ epilayer from a
SSF B’ substrate)
C
B’ (0001)
C’
A’
B
BPD: basal plane dislocation
A
SSF: Shockley-type stacking fault

(a)

limited by electron-hole
SSF: Shockley-type stacking fault recombination area
(a) p+
n–
BPD
A’ n+
Perfect 4H
B’
SSF
C B (0001)
2
B’ SSF A
limited by
C’ C’ C-core partial
2
A’ A’
B B (b)
2
A A
Fig. 25. Schematic illustrations of single SSF expansion from a screw-
CBABCABCA ABCABCA type BPD in a SiC epitaxial layer replicated from a substrate; (a) before and
(b) after expansion of SSF.

(b) (c)

Fig. 24. (a) High-resolution TEM image of the fault region of a 4H-
SiC(0001) PiN diode after current stress,171) (b) schematic stacking sequence
of the observed structure, and (c) stacking sequence of perfect 4H-SiC. The
stacking fault can be denoted by the (31) structure using Zhdanov’s notation,
while perfect 4H-SiC has the (22) structure (reproduced with permission
from AIP Publishing LLC).
diode is schematized in (a) and the SSF expansion inside a
SiC PiN diode is shown in (b). In the PiN diode, the SSF
expansion is restricted by not only the immobile C-core
partial dislocation but also the electron–hole recombination
region. For the reasons described above, the majority of the
expanded SSFs in PiN diodes (or other devices) are triangular
in shape. On the other hand, an SSF expanded from a BPD
segment of a dislocation half-loop exhibits a rhombic
shape.112,173)
The driving force behind the SSF expansion has been
studied and was found to be intrinsic to the material and not
caused by stress.112) Therefore, complete elimination of
nucleation sites is essential for the development of SiC
bipolar devices. Bipolar degradation is the most serious
problem in the development of SiC bipolar devices and can
also be harmful to SiC field-effect transistors when the body
diodes (p+ body=n− drift layer) are forward-biased. The
reduction of BPD density in bulk growth, enhanced con-
version from BPDs to TEDs during epitaxial growth, and the
elimination of BPD nucleation during device processing are
the most important remaining issues in SiC technology.
040103-15
7. Point defects in SiC
7.1 Major deep levels in SiC epitaxial layers
Another important type of defect in epitaxial layers is point
defects, which create deep level(s) in a bandgap.174) Deep
levels are usually characterized by deep-level transient spec-
troscopy (DLTS) measurements175–177) on SiC Schottky (or
pn) structures. The density of deep levels in lightly-doped as-
grown SiC(0001) epitaxial layers is typically 5 × 1012–2 ×
1013 cm−3, depending on the growth conditions. This value is
fairly low for a compound semiconductor and is acceptable
for the fabrication of unipolar devices. In the fabrication of
power MOSFETs, for example, deep levels created by ion
implantation are more important. For bipolar device appli-
cations, however, the above-mentioned density is not low
enough, especially when a long carrier lifetime is required.
Details are presented in Sect. 7.2.
Figure 26 shows the energy levels of major deep levels
observed in as-grown n- and p-type 4H-SiC epitaxial
layers.178–183) Among these levels, the Z1=2 (Ec − 0.63 eV)178)
and EH6=7 (Ec − 1.55 eV)179) centers are the dominant
defects commonly observed at densities of (0.3–2) × 1013
cm−3 in all as-grown epitaxial layers grown by CVD.
Both centers are extremely stable against high-temperature
(∼1700 °C) annealing. In the lower half of the bandgap, the
HK2 (Ev + 0.84 eV), HK3 (Ev + 1.24 eV), and HK4 (Ev +
1.44 eV)183) centers are dominant deep levels. The densities
of HK2, HK3, and HK4 centers are typically in the range of
(1–4) × 1012 cm−3. Because the HK2, HK3, and HK4 centers
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
Conduction Band
0.0
Z1/2
Detected in
RD1/2 p-type
EC - ET (eV)
1.0 UT1
EH6/7
HK4 (P1)
2.0 HK3
HK2
Detected in
n-type HS2
3.0
Valence Band
Fig. 26. Energy levels of major deep levels observed in as-grown n- and
p-type SiC epitaxial layers.
almost disappear upon annealing at 1450–1550 °C,183) the
Z1=2 and EH6=7 centers are more important. Note that the
Z1=2 and EH6=7 centers are also dominant in ion-implanted
regions and dry-etched regions of SiC.178,184–186) In addition
to these levels, a few impurity-related levels are often ob-
served in as-grown SiC epitaxial layers. For example, boron
is a typical impurity that can be unintentionally doped from
reactor parts (such as graphite susceptors). Boron contami-
nation creates the boron acceptor level [Ev + (0.28–0.35)
eV]66) and the boron-related “D center” (Ev + 0.55 eV).66)
Another common impurity is titanium (Ti), which also
originates from graphite parts as well as from pumping
oil. Titanium creates very shallow electron traps (Ec − 0.11=
0.17 eV) in 4H-SiC.187) The typical impurity density in CVD-
grown SiC epitaxial layers is about (0.5–5) × 1013 cm−3 for
boron and (0.5–5) × 1012 cm−3 for titanium.
The Z1=2 center and EH6=7 center (or at least the EH7
center) are observed with almost identical density in all SiC
samples.180) The origin of the Z1=2 center and the EH7 center
was unambiguously identified as a carbon monovacancy (VC)
with different charge states on the basis of theoretical calcu-
lations188) and a compartive study using DLTS and electron
paramagnetic resonance (EPR).189–191) Figure 27(a) plots the
area density for single-negatively-charged carbon vacancies
[VC(−)] as determined by EPR versus the area density of
Z1=2 centers taken from the depth profile obtained by DLTS
measurements.191) Because VC(2−) is not EPR-active (be-
cause it contains no unpaired electrons), the VC density is
estimated by producing VC(−) through the photoexcitation of
n-type SiC. As shown in Fig. 27(a), the VC density is very
close to the Z1=2 center density for a series of samples.
Figure 27(b) depicts the energy levels of a carbon mono-
vacancy, Z1=2, and EH7 centers.189) The Z1=2 and EH7 centers
are ascribed to the acceptor (negative-U)182) and donor levels
of the carbon monovacancy, respectively.
The densities of Z1=2 and EH6=7 centers are strongly
dependent on the C=Si ratio and growth temperature.192–194)
However, the growth rate only has a minor effect on defect
generation, even when the growth rate is changed from 5 to
80 µm=h.87) Both the Z1=2 and EH6=7 densities can be
considerably reduced by increasing the C=Si ratio during
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
1015
EC N D = 1.8x1016 cm-3
3.0 N D = 3.8x1016 cm-3
VC(-) Density (cm-2)
N D = 1.1x1017 cm-3
[Z1/2] = [VC(-)]
ET - EV (eV)
1014
2.0
1.0
1013 13
10 1014 1015
Z1/2 Center Density (cm-2)
(a)
EV
Conduction Band
Z1/2
EH7
Valence Band
(b)
Fig. 27. (Color online) (a) Area density of a single-negatively-charged
carbon vacancy [VC(−)] determined by EPR versus the area density of the
Z1=2 center taken from the depth profile determined by DLTS measurements
(reproduced with permission from AIP Publishing LLC).191) (b) Energy
levels of VC, Z1=2 center, and EH7 center.
CVD on (0001). Both defect densities increase significantly
with increasing growth temperature. The Z1=2 and EH6=7
centers in SiC are thermally stable, and the densities of the
Z1=2 and EH6=7 centers in the epitaxial layers have been
found to increase rapidly through thermal annealing in Ar at
temperatures above 1750 °C.195) This can be attributed to the
higher equilibrium density of the carbon vacancy in SiC
at higher temperatures. An Arrhenius plot of the density of
the Z1=2 center as a function of the inverse of the annealing
temperature yields a free energy of the defect (carbon
vacancy) formation of approximately 5.8 eV.
7.2 Impact of deep levels on SiC devices
The Z1=2 center is the most important defect because of its
abundance and its being a major carrier-lifetime killer, at least
in n-type 4H-SiC.196,197) Figure 28 shows the inverse of the
carrier lifetime versus the measured density of the Z1=2 center
for 50-µm-thick n-type SiC epitaxial layers.197,198) At Z1=2
densities above (1–2) × 1013 cm−3, the inverse of the carrier
lifetime is proportional to the Z1=2 density, indicating that the
lifetime is governed by Shockley–Read–Hall (SRH) recom-
bination via the Z1=2 center. However, the correlation
between the lifetime and the Z1=2 density is unclear when
the Z1=2 density is in the 1011–1012 cm−3 range. In a semi-
conductor, multiple recombination processes occur, including
SRH recombination and several other recombination process-
es. Thus, the carrier lifetime (τ) can be expressed by the
following equation:
040103-16 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
7
10
1/τ
1 / τ (s-1)
1/τ SRH
(slope = 1)
106
1/τ other
1012 1013 1014 1015
Z1/2 Center Density (cm-3)
Fig. 28. Inverse of the carrier lifetime versus the measured density of the
Z1=2 center for 50-µm-thick n-type SiC epitaxial layers (reproduced with
permission from Wiley-VCH Verlag).198) When the Z1=2 density is higher
than (1–2) × 1013 cm−3, the inverse of the carrier lifetime is proportional
to the Z1=2 density, indicating that the lifetime is governed by SRH
recombination via the Z1=2 center.
1 1 1 to below the detection limit (approximately 1 × 1011 cm−3).
¼ þ ; ð4Þ
 SRH other
where τSRH is the SRH lifetime governed by recombination
centers, and τother is the carrier lifetime governed by other
recombination processes, such as surface recombination,
recombination in the substrate, Auger recombination, and
recombination at extended defects. Here, the inverse of τSRH
is proportional to the density of the recombination centers
(1=τSRH = aNZ1=2, where a is a constant, and NZ1=2 is the
density of the Z1=2 center), while τother can be assumed to be
independent of the Z1=2 density. Experimental data can be
fitted by using the model expressed by Eq. (4). The fitted
result is shown as a solid line for 1=τSRH + 1=τother and as two
broken lines for 1=τSRH and 1=τother in Fig. 28. Here the
1=τother line is determined by recombination at the surface and
in the substrate owing to the limited thickness of the epitaxial
layers (50 µm in this plot), and this component is decreased
by using thicker epitaxial layers. The details have been
described elsewhere.199)
To obtain a long carrier lifetime, which is beneficial for
reducing the on-resistance in bipolar devices, the density of
the Z1=2 center must be decreased to the order of 1 × 1012
cm−3 or lower. Thus far, two successful techniques have been
proposed to eliminate the Z1=2 center (or carbon vacancy).
In the first technique, excess carbon atoms are introduced
from the outside and the diffusion of these carbon atoms into
the bulk region is promoted by high-temperature anneal-
ing.200,201) This can actually be achieved by carbon ion im-
plantation and subsequent annealing in Ar at 1650–1700 °C.
Figure 29 shows the DLTS spectra obtained from n-type SiC
epitaxial layers before and after carbon ion implantation
followed by high-temperature Ar annealing. The Z1=2 and
EH6=7 centers are both eliminated by this process to below
the detection limit (approximately 1 × 1011 cm−3 in this case).
Because the created carbon interstitials have large diffusion
coefficients above 1400–1500 °C, the excess carbon inter-
stitials diffuse and fill the carbon vacancies, leading to the
elimination of the Z1=2 and EH6=7 centers from the surface
region to the bulk. After annealing, the defective implanted
region near the surface is removed by plasma etching.
040103-17
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
n-type 4H-SiC DLTS
Z1/2 EH6/7
DLTS Signal (arb. units)
Annealed at
1600°C
With C+-implanted
Before annealing
layer
Annealed
at 1600°C
Without C+-
implanted Before annealing
layer
200 400 600
Temperature (K)
Fig. 29. (Color online) DLTS spectra obtained from n-type SiC epitaxial
layers before and after carbon ion implantation followed by high-temperature
Ar annealing. Both the Z1=2 and EH6=7 centers are eliminated by this process
In the second technique, the thermal oxidation of SiC
under appropriate conditions eliminates the Z1=2 and EH6=7
centers.202,203) During the thermal oxidation, carbon atoms
are mostly removed by the production of carbon monoxide
(CO). However, a certain proportion of the carbon atoms are
emitted into the bulk region and diffuse deep into the SiC. As
in the case of carbon ion implantation, the diffusion coeffi-
cient of the carbon interstitials is so large that the depth to
which the Z1=2 and EH6=7 centers are eliminated can exceed
100 µm by either the combination of oxidation and sub-
sequent high-temperature Ar annealing or by high-temper-
ature oxidation (1300–1400 °C).204) It should be noted that
the migration energy of the carbon interstitials is much
lower than that of the silicon interstitials,58) and the
experimentally obtained self-diffusion coefficient of carbon
is much larger than that of silicon.205) During high-temper-
ature oxidation or annealing, carbon vacancies (or Z1=2
center) are almost immobile because of the extremely low
diffusion coefficient in SiC.58,178) Figure 30 shows the depth
profile of the Z1=2 center density for SiC epitaxial layers
after thermal oxidation.204) By extending the oxidation time
or raising the oxidation temperature, the “Z1=2-free” region
extending from the surface becomes thicker (100 µm or even
thicker).
Figure 31 plots the microwave-detected photoconductance
(µ-PCD) decay curves at room temperature obtained from a
220-µm-thick n-type SiC epitaxial layer.136) The decay curves
for the as-grown material and for the material after Z1=2-
center reduction through thermal oxidation at 1400 °C for
48 h are shown. For the as-grown epitaxial layer, the meas-
ured lifetime is 1.1 µs, while the lifetime is greatly improved
to 26 µs after the defect reduction process. The depth of the
Z1=2-eliminated region of this particular sample is estimated
to be about 230 µm, indicating that the defects are eliminated
throughout the entire thickness of the epitaxial layer. After
lifetime measurement of the defect-eliminated sample, the
surface was passivated with a 20-nm-thick deposited oxide
annealed in nitric oxide (NO) at 1250 °C for 30 min. After
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015) INVITED REVIEW PAPER

(a) Oxidation at 1300 °C 120

13 kV-class SiC PiN
Z1/2 Center Density (cm-3) 1014
as-grown

Current Density (A/cm2)

10.6 h 100
13 with carrier lifetime-
10
1.3 h 80 enhancement process
RON = 1.8 mΩcm2
10 12 60
5.3 h 15.9 h
40 without carrier lifetime-
11 detection limit
10 enhancement process
20 RON = 6.7 mΩcm2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Depth from Surface (μm)
0 1 2 3 4 5
(b) Oxidation at 1400 °C Forward Voltage (V)
Z1/2 Center Density (cm-3)

1014
as-grown
Fig. 32. Forward current density–voltage characteristics of 13-kV-class
13 SiC PiN diodes. The thickness and donor density of the voltage-blocking
10 layer (i-layer) are 98 µm and 2 × 1014 cm−3, respectively. Before epitaxial
growth of the p-type anode layer, one wafer was oxidized at 1400 °C for 24 h
to enhance the carrier lifetime, while the other wafer was processed without
1012 5.5 h the oxidation.
16.5 h
detection limit
11
10 defect, and the charge state will change to neutral. However,
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 accurate capture cross sections for electrons and holes are not
Depth from Surface (μm) yet known for this neutral defect. The carrier lifetime of as-
grown p-type SiC epilayers is typically about 1 µs, increasing
Fig. 30. (Color online) Depth profile of the Z1=2 density for SiC epitaxial
to 2–3 µs after the carbon-vacancy reduction process (carbon
layers after thermal oxidation at (a) 1300 and (b) 1400 °C for different implantation or high-temperature oxidation).207,208) The
periods. By extending the oxidation time or raising the oxidation measured lifetimes seem to be more sensitive to the surface
temperature, the “Z1=2-free” region extending from the surface becomes passivation compared with the case of n-type SiC. Through
thicker. (Symbols: experiments, lines: simulation.) the carbon-vacancy reduction process and subsequent hydro-
gen annealing at 1000 °C for 10 min, a long carrier lifetime
220 μm thick SiC epitaxial layer
of 10 µs has been obtained for lightly-doped p-type SiC
epilayers (acceptor density: 2 × 1014 cm−3).209) It should be
μ-PCD Signal (arb. units)

106
τ = 1.1 μs
5
10
τ = 26.1 μs
0 10 20
Fig. 31. (Color online) µ-PCD decay curves at room temperature obtained
from a 220-µm-thick n-type SiC epitaxial layer (reproduced from Ref. 136).
The decay curves for the as-grown material and the material after Z1=2-center
reduction through thermal oxidation at 1400 °C for 48 h are shown.
this surface passivation, the lifetime increased to 33 µs, and
then to 47 µs at a measurement temperature of 200 °C.
Similar carrier lifetimes can be achieved by carbon ion
implantation and subsequent Ar annealing.206)
The carrier lifetime in p-type SiC is more complicated.
Because the Fermi level is close to the valence band in p-type
SiC, the carbon vacancy defect must be positively charged
[VC(+): EH7 center] in equilibrium. Thus, it is expected
that any excess electrons will quickly be trapped by the
as-grown pointed out that the measured lifetimes are severely under-
after oxidation (1400°C, 48 h)
after surface passivation estimated, especially when the lifetime is long, due to the
influence of surface recombination.199) Accurate determina-
tion of the surface recombination velocity of SiC is an
important subject of study.210)
τ = 33.2 μs It has been reported that the on-resistance of ultrahigh-
voltage (>10 kV) SiC PiN diodes can be improved dramat-
ically by such lifetime enhancement.109,211) One example is
shown in Fig. 32, where the forward current density versus
voltage characteristics of 13-kV-class SiC PiN diodes are
30 40 50 60 70 plotted.39) The thickness and donor density of the voltage-
Time (μs) blocking layer (i-layer) are 98 µm and 2 × 1014 cm−3, respec-
tively. Before epitaxial growth of the p-type anode layer, one
wafer was oxidized at 1400 °C for 24 h to enhance the carrier
lifetime, while the other wafer was processed without oxida-
tion. Through this lifetime enhancement process, the differ-
ential on-resistance at a current density of 100 A=cm2
improved markedly from 6.7 to 1.8 mΩ cm2. To achieve a
low on-state loss and switching loss, control of the carrier
lifetime will be required in the future.197)
8. SiC Schottky barrier diodes
Since SiC unipolar devices exhibit superior characteristics
in the blocking-voltage range from 600 to 6500 V (or even
10 kV), SiC SBDs and power MOSFETs have been devel-
oped most intensively. In this section, several important
aspects of SiC SBDs are described.
040103-18 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015) INVITED REVIEW PAPER

2.5 Thermionic Emission

Schottky Barrier Height (eV)

n-type 4H-SiC Thermionic Field Emission
2.0 EF Field Emission

Pt
Au
1.5 Ni
Mo
1.0
Ti
: (0001)Si
0.5 : (0001)C
EC
: (1120)
0
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
EV
Metal Work Function (eV)
(a)
Fig. 33. Schottky barrier height versus metal work function for n-type SiC
 and
Schottky barrier diodes with various metals. Data for SiC(0001), ð0001Þ, 100
 are plotted.
ð1120Þ 10-1

Leakage Current (A/cm2)

Symbols: Experiments
Lines: Calculation
10-2
8.1 Schottky contacts on SiC 10-3
Figure 33 plots the barrier height versus metal work function 120°C
for n-type SiC SBDs with various metals.212–216) Data for 10-4
SiC(0001), ð0001Þ, and ð1120Þ
 are shown. For a given metal, 10-5 80°C
the barrier height is slightly higher on ð0001Þ and slightly -6
10

lower on (0001), with the value for ð1120Þ in between them. 24°C
This difference may be attributed to the presence of polarity- 10-7
dependent dipoles at the interface and=or the different distri- 10-8
bution of surface states. The slope of this plot is 0.8–0.9, 0 200 400 600 800 1000
indicating that the metal=SiC interface is free from Fermi Reverse Voltage (V)
level pinning and close to the Schottky–Mott limit.217,218) (b)
The barrier heights can be changed slightly by employing
different processes, such as surface treatment, prior to metal Fig. 34. (Color online) (a) Band diagram of an n-type SiC Schottky
deposition. barrier under high reverse bias. Since the potential barrier can become very
Schottky barrier heights on p-type SiC have been much thin due to the high electric field, TFE can take place. (b) Reverse current–
less studied,219) but it has been found that the sum of the voltage characteristics of a Ti=SiC SBD at various temperatures (reproduced
Schottky barrier heights on n- and p-type SiC (ϕBn, ϕBp) for a with permission from Trans Tech Publications).221)
given Schottky metal material is close to the bandgap (Eg):
that there is an important reason for the relatively large
Bn þ Bp  Eg : ð5Þ
leakage current in SiC SBDs. In SiC, the triangular-like
Therefore, a metal having a small work function such as Ti potential barrier can be very thin because of the high electric
gives a high barrier height on p-type SiC. This insight is field, and the leakage current is governed by thermionic field
useful not only for the design of SiC SBDs but also for the emission,220,221) as shown in Fig. 34(a). The leakage current
process optimization of ohmic contacts. density based on a thermionic field emission (TFE) model
can be expressed by the following equation:221)
8.2 Leakage current in SiC Schottky barrier diodes rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
A TqħE 
Unique device physics is involved in the reverse leakage JTFE ¼
k 2m kT
current of SiC SBDs. In SiC, the electric field strength in the   
space-charge region can be almost ten times higher than that 1 ðqħEÞ2
 exp  B  ; ð6Þ
for Si-based devices. Therefore, the band bending can be so kT 24m ðkTÞ2
sharp that the potential barrier can be very thin. Figure 34(a) where m+ and E are the tunneling mass of carriers and the
illustrates the band diagram for an n-type SiC Schottky electric field strength, respectively. Here q, k, and T are the
barrier under high reverse bias. In Si SBDs, the reverse elementary charge, Boltzmann constant, and absolute temper-
leakage current is well described by a thermionic emission ature, respectively. A+ is the effective Richardson’s constant
model, taking into account the barrier height lowering by the for the semiconductor. In SBDs on n-type 4H-SiC(0001),
image force,53,217) unless the semiconductor is heavily doped. A+ has been determined to be 146 A cm−2 K−2 by using Mc
In SiC SBDs, however, the observed leakage current density (number of equivalent conduction band minima) = 3 and
is many orders of magnitude higher than the value calculated m+ = 0.4 m0 .15) This value agrees with that obtained from a
by the thermionic emission model (taking into account barrier careful experiment.222) Note that the effective Richardson’s
height lowering). In the early stage, a leakage current through constant depends on the crystal face as well as on the con-
crystalline defects or severe local lowering of the Schottky ductivity type (n- or p-type). Figure 34(b) shows an example
barrier height was suspected to occur. However, it turned out of reverse current–voltage characteristics of a Ti=SiC(n-type)
040103-19 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
Schottky contact passivation
p p
p-islands termination
n-drift layer
n+-substrate
ohmic contact
(a)
Schottky contact passivation
p p
Schottky
p
contact
n-drift layer
n+-substrate
p n-layer
ohmic contact
(b)
Fig. 35. (Color online) Schematic structures of (a) JBS diode and
(b) trench SBD, both of which are effective in reducing the electric field
strength underneath the Schottky barrier.
SBD at various temperatures.221) The considerable increase
in leakage current with increasing bias voltage, as well as
the small temperature dependence, can be well reproduced by
the TFE model. It has been reported that the leakage current
in SBDs formed on high-quality GaN(0001) can also be
reproduced by the TFE model.223) Thus, the TFE current
will be dominant in SBDs on any wide-bandgap material that
exhibits a high electric field strength, such as SiC, GaN,
gallium oxide (Ga2O3), and diamond.
Therefore, an effective way to reduce the leakage current
of SiC SBDs is to minimize the electric field strength near the
Schottky barrier interface so that the potential barrier does not
become too thin. For this purpose, several diode structures
have been developed. Figure 35 shows schematics of (a)
a junction barrier Schottky (JBS) diode17,224,225) and (b) a
trench SBD.48) In JBS diodes, p-type islands (or stripes)
are formed beneath the Schottky contact by aluminum ion
implantation. At a high reverse bias voltage, the space-charge
regions extending from the pn junctions (p-type island=n-
type drift layer) merge and the electric field strength near the
Schottky interface is reduced. The concept is very similar in
trench SBDs, where the space-charge regions extending from
the pn junctions at the trench bottom play an important
role. In either case, the width and spacing of the p-island or
trench are critical, because otherwise the on-resistance can
be severely increased by the space-charge regions. Since
the TFE current is very sensitive to the barrier height, the
uniformity of the Schottky barrier height is essential to ensure
a low leakage current.159,226,227) A small area having a smaller
barrier height can be a dominant leakage path in SiC SBDs.
040103-20
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
Source
SiO2 Gate Rsc
n+
Rac Rch
p-well p-well
RJFET
Rs
Rdrift
n-drift layer
Rsub
n+-substrate
Rdc
Drain
Fig. 36. (Color online) Schematic illustration of DIMOSFET, where the
major components of resistance are indicated. The on-resistance of a power
MOSFET consists of several series resistances. Rsc: source-contact resistance,
Rs: source resistance, Rch: channel resistance, Rac: accumulation-layer
resistance, RJFET: JFET resistance, Rdrift: drift-layer resistance, Rsub: substrate
resistance, and Rdc: drain-contact resistance.
9. SiC MOSFETs
9.1 On-resistance of SiC power MOSFETs
Figure 36 shows a schematic of a DIMOSFET, where
the major components of resistance are indicated.3,4) The
on-resistance of a power MOSFET naturally consists of a
series connection of several resistances, such as the source
resistance, the channel resistance, the drift-layer resistance,
and the substrate resistance. In DIMOSFETs, the resistance
between two neighboring p-wells (“JFET resistance”) cannot
be neglected. For SiC DIMOSFETs, the drift-layer resist-
ance is more than 100 times lower than that of Si power
MOSFETs having the same blocking voltage, as described
in Sect. 2. On the other hand, the channel resistance and
JFET resistance are dominant factors in SiC MOSFETs with
blocking voltages up to about 2–3 kV. Above 3–5 kV, the on-
resistance of SiC MOSFETs is dominated by the drift-layer
resistance, as in the case of 600–1200 V Si MOSFETs.
It has been pointed out that the performance of SiC
MOSFETs can be limited by a low channel mobility, which
yields a high channel resistance.12,13,16) To improve the
channel resistance, the following approaches have been used:
(i) Enhancement of channel mobility
(ii) Decrease in channel length
(iii) Reduction of cell pitch.
Enhancement of the channel mobility, which is a
challenge, will be described in the subsequent subsections.
A shortened channel length can directly contribute to the
reduction of on-resistance. However, one has to be vigilant
of the short-channel effect.228) Without appropriate design
taking account of the short-channel effect, the threshold
voltage decreases and the leakage current increases. Reduc-
tion of the cell pitch is effective in increasing the cell density
(and thus also the channel width). However, when the
spacing between p-wells becomes short, the JFET resistance
increases considerably.229) Thus, careful structure optimiza-
tion by device simulation is a mandatory requirement to
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
Interface State Density (cm-2eV )
-1
13 4H-SiC(0001)
10
dry ox.
1012
dry ox. + N2O (1300°C)
1011
dry ox. + NO (1300°C)
3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 0.6 0.4 0.2
E – Ev (eV)
Ec
Fig. 37. Distribution of interface state density near the conduction and
valence band edges obtained from n- and p-type SiC(0001) MOS capacitors,
respectively. The interface state densities of MOS structures formed by dry
oxidation, and dry oxidation followed by nitridation in NO or N2O are
plotted. In this figure, the interface state density was evaluated by a
conventional high (1 MHz)–low method.
improve the MOSFET performance. Note that trench
MOSFETs are, in principle, free of JFET resistance, and
the extensive scaling of cells is possible. This is one of the
main reasons why very low on-resistances have been reported
for trench MOSFETs.43,48)
9.2 Interface properties of SiC MOS structure
Thermal oxides of SiC are commonly employed as a gate
dielectric in MOS devices as well as to passivate the SiC
surface. However, the most striking difference from Si
technology is, of course, the presence of carbon, one of the
host elements in SiC. A number of review papers have been
published on SiC MOS structures.230–237) Despite continuous
improvement of the SiC MOS interface, the interface quality
and the scientific community’s understanding of the factors
that control this quality are still far from satisfactory. This
subsection briefly describes the common features, present
understanding, and problems of SiC MOS technology.
Conventional dry oxidation usually yields a high density
of interface states and poor channel mobility of below 10
cm2 V−1 s−1. The situation is not improved even when
annealing is performed in a hydrogen ambient.230,231) In
recent years, however, low interface state densities have
been obtained through careful adjustment of the oxidation
conditions, taking into account the oxidation reactions of
SiC.238,239) When oxidation is carried out in a wet ambient,
SiC MOSFETs on ð0001Þ  240) and ð1120Þ
 241,242) exhibit
2 −1 −1
relatively high mobilities of 90–200 cm V s .
One promising process to improve the properties of SiC
MOS structures is post-oxidation nitridation in a nitrogen-
containing gas such as NO,243–251) nitrous oxide (N2O),252–254)
or ammonia (NH3).255) Direct oxidation in N2O or NO was
also proposed. In particular, interface nitridation by NO or
N2O is widely employed in academic research as well as in the
mass production of SiC power MOSFETs. Figure 37 depicts
the distribution of the interface state density (DIT) near the
conduction and valence band edges obtained from n- and
p-type SiC(0001) MOS capacitors, respectively.235) The
interface state densities of MOS structures formed by dry
oxidation, and dry oxidation followed by nitridation in NO
or N2O are plotted. In this figure, the interface state density
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
Interface State Density (cm-2eV-1)
Dry oxidation + annealing in NO, (0001)
1013
C –ψ S
Conductance
(max 100 MHz)
1012
1011
High(1 MHz) – Low
0 High(100 MHz) – Low
1010
Ev 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
EC – ET (eV)
Fig. 38. (Color online) Distribution of interface state density obtained for
SiC(0001) MOS capacitors by the high (1 MHz)–low method, the C–ψS
method, and the conductance method, where Ec − ET (ET: energy level of
interface traps) on the horizontal axis is determined from the surface potential
calculated by the depletion approximation. The oxide was formed by dry
oxidation at 1300 °C followed by annealing in NO at 1250 °C.
was evaluated by the conventional high (1 MHz)-low method.
Clearly, a reduction in the interface state density over the
entire range of energies within the bandgap is achieved by
nitridation. As a result, the effective mobility of n-channel
SiC(0001) MOSFETs fabricated on lightly-doped p-type
epitaxial layers was enhanced from 4–8 cm2 V−1 s−1 for dry
oxides to 25–35 cm2 V−1 s−1 for N2O-nitrided oxides, and
to 40–52 cm2 V−1 s−1 for NO-nitrided oxides. The effective
mobility of p-channel MOSFETs is also improved from
1–2 cm2 V−1 s−1 for dry oxides to 7–12 cm2 V−1 s−1 for
nitrided oxides.256)
It has been found that a high density of very fast interface
states is generated near the conduction band edge by
nitridation annealing,257) although the density of relatively
slow interface states is markedly reduced by nitridation, as
shown in Fig. 37. The very fast states can respond to a probe
frequency of 100 MHz or even higher (>GHz) at room
temperature. Figure 38 shows the interface state densities ob-
tained for SiC(0001) MOS capacitors by the high (1 MHz)–
low method, the C–ψS method,258) and the conductance
method, where Ec − ET (ET: energy level of interface traps) on
the horizontal axis is determined from the surface potential
calculated by the depletion approximation.258) In the con-
ductance measurements, the highest probe frequency was 100
MHz. All measurements were performed on the same MOS
capacitor with a roughly 40-nm-thick dry oxide annealed in
NO. The DIT distribution obtained by the high (1 MHz)–low
method is much lower than that obtained by the C–ψS method
because fast interface states that respond to frequencies above
1 MHz are not detected. Even for SiC MOS structures without
nitridation (without fast interface states generated by nitrida-
tion), the DIT distribution is markedly underestimated by the
high (1 MHz)–low method. The limitations of the high-low
method have been summarized in the literature.259) Despite
recent process development, the interface state density of
SiC MOS structures is still very high: about (0.5–1) × 1013
cm−2 eV−1 at Ec − 0.2 eV after appropriate nitridation.
Annealing in NO or N2O naturally results in the
accumulation of nitrogen at the SiO2=SiC interface. The
040103-21 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
SiC MOSFET L / W = 100 / 200 μm
140
(1120)
Channel Mobility (cm2/Vs) 120
100
(1100)
80
60 (0001)
40
20 (0001)
0 Coulomb scattering has often been proposed as the main
0 5 10
Gate Voltage (V)
Fig. 39. Field-effect mobility as a function of the gate voltage of
n-channel MOSFETs fabricated on SiC(0001), ð0001Þ, ð1120Þ,
 
and ð1100Þ.
Approximately 40-nm-thick oxides were grown by dry oxidation, and
subsequent nitridation was performed in a NO (10%)=N2 (90%) atmosphere
at 1250 °C.
nitrogen atom density at the interface strongly depends on the
nitridation conditions and can reach 5 × 1020 cm−3 or higher.
A correlation between the increase in nitrogen density at the
interface and the reduction in interface state density has been
indicated. However, it is unclear how the interface defects are
passivated by nitridation. The passivation of dangling bonds
with nitrogen or a simple shift in defect energy levels by
nitridation is unlikely.
Post-oxidation nitridation or direct oxidation in a nitrogen-
containing gas is also effective in reducing the interface
state density on SiCð0001Þ, ð1120Þ,
 
and ð1100Þ. 250,253,260,261)
Figure 39 shows the field-effect mobility as a function
of the gate voltage of n-channel MOSFETs fabricated on
SiC(0001), ð0001Þ,  ð1120Þ,
 
and ð1100Þ. Roughly 40-nm-
thick oxides were grown by dry oxidation, and subsequent
nitridation was performed in a NO (10%)=N2 (90%) atmos-
phere at 1250 °C. The channel mobility obtained is reason-
ably high, 46 cm2 V−1 s−1, on ð0001Þ,  and very high, 95–115
2 −1 −1  
cm V s , on ð1120Þ and ð1100Þ. The latter result is
promising for the development of trench MOSFETs on
SiC(0001) wafers. The effects of the tilt angle on the channel
mobility of SiC MOSFETs with ð1120Þ  and ð1100Þ
 sidewalls
262)
have also been investigated.
The exact origin of the high interface state density for SiC
is not very well understood. In the case of Si MOS structures,
dangling bonds at the interface are the dominant defects (for
example, the Pb center).263) Since the interface state density
for thermal oxide=Si structures is in the 109–1010 cm−2 eV−1
range, it is unlikely that the high interface state density
(1012–1013 cm−2 eV−1) for SiC MOS structures is attributable
simply to dangling bonds. Afanas’ev et al. suggested that the
donor-like interface states in the lower half of the bandgap
may originate from carbon clusters (carbon-cluster model),
on the basis of internal photoemission spectroscopy studies
of SiC MOS structures and graphite.231) Although it has been
suggested that residual carbon near the interface may play
a role, a direct link between the carbon density near the
interface and the interface state density has not been
established. The abnormally high interface state density near
the conduction band edge of SiC(0001) also remains a
mystery. To elucidate the origin of interface states and
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
the nitridation mechanism, theoretical studies264–266) as well
as structural analyses such as EPR267) and high-resolution
electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS)268,269) are required.
9.3 Mobility-limiting factors
The physical reason for the low channel mobility of SiC
MOSFETs has been debated. In Si MOSFETs, the main
factors limiting the channel mobility are the fixed charge
and surface roughness270) because the interface state density
in Si MOS structures formed by an adequate process is low
enough not to limit the channel mobility. In SiC MOSFETs,
15
limiting factor. This model arises from the fact that the
channel mobility of SiC(0001) MOSFETs usually exhibits
a positive temperature coefficient (increasing at elevated
temperatures). However, this is a misleading interpretation,
and thermally activated transport or electron localization in
inversion layers232,271) is more likely to be responsible.
In estimations of field-effect mobility or effective mobility,
it is assumed that all the electrons in the inversion layer are
mobile, travelling in the conduction band from the source
to the drain. In other words, the sheet electron density in the
inversion layer, nsheet, is approximately given by Cox(VG − VT),
where Cox is the oxide capacitance, VG the gate voltage, and VT
the threshold voltage. However, the interface state density in
SiC MOS structures is so high that the integrated density of
interface states can be of the same order as the induced sheet
electron density (∼1012 cm−2). Electrons trapped at the inter-
face states must be almost immobile. If 90% of induced elec-
trons are trapped, for example, only 10% of induced electrons
can travel and contribute to the drain current. Even if the
mobile electrons drift with a mobility of 100 cm2 V−1 s−1, the
overall channel mobility is calculated to be 10 cm2 V−1 s−1.
Under these circumstances, an increasing number of electrons
are excited to the conduction band and become mobile with
increasing temperature. As a result, the calculated channel
mobility shows a positive temperature coefficient. Therefore,
the “electron trapping effect” is a more correct term to explain
the mobility behavior. The temperature dependence of field-
effect mobility or effective mobility does not give clear insight
into the scattering mechanisms involved in carrier transport.
As described above, the total density of induced electrons
(ntotal ) is given by
ntotal ¼ nmobile þ ntrap ; ð7Þ
where nmobile and ntrap are the densities of mobile electrons
and of electrons trapped at interface states, respectively. The
real mobility of mobile electrons (μreal ) and the calculated
mobility (μch) are linked by the following equation:
nmobile
ch ¼ real : ð8Þ
nmobile þ ntrap
The real mobility of mobile electrons in the conduction band
can be obtained by MOS-Hall effect measurements.272–274)
Through MOS-Hall effect measurements, not only the real
mobility but also the real mobile electron density (nmobile)
can be determined. Since the total density of induced elec-
trons (ntotal) is given by Cox(VG − VT), the degree of electron
trapping [(ntotal − nmobile)=ntotal ] can also be estimated.
When the interface state density is very high, one can see
a rough correlation between the n-channel mobility and
040103-22 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
SiC MOSFET
Effective Mobility (cm2/Vs)
102
slope = - 1
10
1 of 200–500 mV=decade, much larger than the ideal value
1011 1012
N it by high-low method (cm -2)
(Sum of slow states)
(a)
SiC MOSFET
Effective Mobility (cm2/Vs)
102
slope = - 1
10
1
1011 1012
N it by C - ψ s method (cm-2)
(Sum of fast and slow states)
(b)
Fig. 40. (Color online) Correlation between the effective mobility
(acceptor density of implanted p-body: 1 × 1017 cm−3) and interface state
density integrated from Ec − 0.2 eV to Ec − 0.5 eV (Nit) for SiC(0001),
 and ð1100Þ
ð1120Þ,  MOSFETs with nitrided gate oxides. The interface state
density was determined by the (a) high (1 MHz)–low method (detection of
only slow states) and (b) C–ψS method (detection of both slow and fast
states). A nearly one-to-one correlation (slope ∼ −1) is observed when Nit
determined from the Dit distribution by the C–ψS method is employed.
the interface state density near the conduction band edge.
However, it is not very clear what the main mobility-limiting
factor is once the interface state density has been reduced by
nitridation or other processes. Figure 40 shows the correlation
between the effective mobility (acceptor density of implanted
p-body: 1 × 1017 cm−3) and interface state density integrated

from Ec − 0.2 eV to Ec − 0.5 eV (Nit) for SiC(0001), ð1120Þ,

and ð1100Þ MOSFETs with nitrided gate oxides. 261)
When the
Dit distribution determined by the high (1 MHz)–low method
(only slow states) is employed to calculate Nit, the mobility
shows poor correlation with Nit, as shown in Fig. 40(a). For
example, a large difference in channel mobility between
(0001) and nonpolar faces exists at similar Nit. However, a
nearly one-to-one correlation (slope ≈ −1) is observed when
Nit determined from the Dit distribution by the C–ψS method
is employed, as shown in Fig. 40(b). The main difference
between the high-low and C–ψS methods is the capability of
fast state detection by the C–ψS method, as mentioned above.
These results indicate the following:12,261,275)
(i) The n-channel mobility of SiC MOSFETs is still limited
mainly by the very high interface state density, even
after the recent process optimization.
(ii) The channel mobility is affected not only by relatively
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
slow states, which are detected by the conventional high
(1 MHz)–low method, but also by very fast interface
(0001)
(1120) states, which can be detected by the C–ψS method [and
(1100) not by the high (1 MHz)–low method].
(iii) The smaller density of fast interface states for SiC MOS
structures on nonpolar faces may be the main reason
why higher mobilities can be attained on these faces
than on (0001).
In general, SiC MOSFETs exhibit poor subthreshold slopes
of approximately 60 mV=decade, at room temperature. The
poor subthreshold slope can be reproduced well using the
distribution of the interface state density determined by the
C–ψS method.12,275)
However, the mechanism of channel conduction in SiC
MOSFETs must be much more complicated. The surface
(0001) roughness of SiC is much larger than that of Si because of the
(1120)
(1100) usage of off-axis {0001} wafers and immature surface pre-
paration technology. The roughness scattering may become
prominent when the interface state density is further reduced.
This is especially important at a high gate bias, at which real
MOS devices operate. The influence of the real (not effective)
fixed charge on channel mobility has not yet been clarified.
Another possible problem is the large fluctuation in surface
potential, as revealed by conductance measurements.230,261,276)
Since the interface structure of SiC MOS structures can be
highly inhomogeneous, the surface potential can fluctuate
inside the MOS channel. Thus, the total conduction in the
inversion layer may be limited by microscopic regions where
the conductivity is greatly suppressed by the fluctuation.
It should be noted that a significant reduction of the
interface state density and the improvement of n-channel
mobility (120–150 cm2 V−1 s−1) have been achieved on
SiC(0001) by “sodium (Na)-contaminated” oxidation.277)
An accelerated oxidation rate has been reported for this
Na-contaminated oxidation. Another strikingly effective
technique to enhance the channel mobility is post-oxidation
annealing in POCl3.278) By annealing in POCl3 at 1000 °C for
10 min, a high channel mobility of 89 cm2 V−1 s−1 is attained.
The mobility can be further improved to 101 cm2 V−1 s−1 by
two-step annealing in POCl3 at 1000 °C and in a forming gas
at 700 °C.279) The interface state density and the subthreshold
slope for MOSFETs are also significantly improved by the
POCl3 annealing. A high channel mobility of 102 cm2 V−1 s−1
has also been attained by boron diffusion into the thermal
oxide.280) Although these techniques cannot be employed
directly in device manufacturing, it is worth investigating the
mechanism of mobility improvement in greater detail in order
to acquire important insights into mobility-limiting factors.
10. Conclusions
SiC is a promising wide-bandgap semiconductor for high-
voltage and low-loss power devices, and the production of
SiC SBDs and power MOSFETs has started. However, the
basic understanding of the material and device physics in SiC
remains poor. In this paper, the features and present status of
SiC power devices were briefly reviewed. Several important
aspects associated with the material properties and impurity
doping were described. The major extended defects and point
defects present in SiC epitaxial wafers were summarized, and
our present understanding of the impact of these defects
040103-23 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
on SiC device performance and reliability was described.
Unique features observed in SiC SBDs and power MOSFETs
such as the leakage current in SBDs and the mobility-limiting
factors in MOSFETs were also reviewed. However, the
present paper omitted other important issues such as the
implantation-induced damage281–286) and threshold voltage
instability of MOSFETs.287–290) The exact mechanism of
ohmic behavior at the contact=SiC interface is not very
clear.291–296) Furthermore, the switching performance and
high-temperature characteristics of SiC power devices were
not discussed. For details of these topics, see recent con-
ference proceedings or related books.8,12,13,297–302)
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Professor J. Suda and all the present and
former members of his group for their contribution to SiC
research. He also acknowledges Professor N. Ohtani of
Kwansei Gakuin University and Dr. H. Tsuchida of Central
Research Institute of Electric Power Industry for their
valuable suggestions on defects in SiC.
1) International Energy Agency [http://www.iea.org].
2) J. G. Kassakian, M. F. Schlecht, and G. C. Verghese, Principles of Power
Electronics (Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, 1991).
3) D. A. Grant and J. Gowar, Power MOSFETs: Theory and Applications
(Wiley, New York, 1989).
4) B. J. Baliga, Fundamentals of Power Semiconductor Devices (Springer,
Berlin, 2008).
5) G. L. Harris, Properties of Silicon Carbide (Inspec, London, 1995).
6) R. F. Davis, G. Kelner, M. Shur, J. W. Palmour, and J. A. Edmond, Proc.
IEEE 79, 677 (1991).
7) M. Bhatnagar and B. J. Baliga, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 40, 645
(1993).
8) Silicon Carbide: A Review of Fundamental Questions and Applications to
Current Device Technology, ed. W. J. Choyke, H. Matsunami, and G.
Pensl (Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1997) Vols. I and II.
9) J. A. Cooper, Jr. and A. Agarwal, Proc. IEEE 90, 956 (2002).
10) H. Matsunami, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 43, 6835 (2004).
11) H. Okumura, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 45, 7565 (2006).
12) T. Kimoto and J. A. Cooper, Fundamentals of Silicon Carbide Technology
(Wiley, Singapore, 2014).
13) B. J. Baliga, Silicon Carbide Power Devices (World Scientific, Singapore,
2006).
14) Polymorphism and Polytypism in Crystals, ed. A. R. Verma and P. Krishna
(Wiley, New York, 1966).
15) A. Itoh, T. Kimoto, and H. Matsunami, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 16, 280
(1995).
16) J. A. Cooper, Jr., M. R. Melloch, R. Singh, A. Agarwal, and J. W. Palmour,
IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 49, 658 (2002).
17) R. Singh, J. A. Cooper, Jr., M. R. Melloch, T. P. Chow, and J. W. Palmour,
IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 49, 665 (2002).
18) P. Friedrichs, Phys. Status Solidi B 245, 1232 (2008).
19) A. O. Konstantinov, Q. Wahab, N. Nordell, and U. Lindefelt, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 71, 90 (1997).
20) W. J. Schaffer, G. H. Negley, K. G. Irvine, and J. W. Palmour, MRS Proc.
339, 595 (1994).
21) Y. Uemoto, Y. M. Hikita, H. Ueno, H. Matsuo, H. Ishida, M. Yanagihara,
T. Ueda, T. Tanaka, and D. Ueda, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 54, 3393
(2007).
22) Y. Wu, M. Jacob-Mitos, M. L. Moore, and S. Heikman, IEEE Electron
Device Lett. 29, 824 (2008).
23) B. J. Baliga, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 10, 455 (1989).
24) J. W. Palmour, H. S. Kong, and R. F. Davis, Appl. Phys. Lett. 51, 2028
(1987).
25) P. Neudeck, S. L. Garverick, D. J. Spry, L.-Yu. Chen, G. M. Beheim, M. J.
Krasowski, and M. Mehregany, Phys. Status Solidi A 206, 2329 (2009).
26) T. Kimoto, Tech. Dig. VLSI Technology Symp., 2010, p. 9.
27) Yu. M. Tairov and V. F. Tsvetkov, J. Cryst. Growth 43, 209 (1978).
28) Yu. M. Tairov and V. F. Tsvetkov, J. Cryst. Growth 52, 146 (1981).
29) Cree, Inc. [http://www.cree.com].
040103-24
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
30) N. Kuroda, K. Shibahara, W. S. Yoo, S. Nishino, and H. Matsunami, Ext.
Abstr. 19th Conf. Solid State Devices and Materials, 1987, p. 227.
31) H. S. Kong, J. T. Glass, and R. F. Davis, J. Appl. Phys. 64, 2672 (1988).
32) H. Matsunami and T. Kimoto, Mater. Sci. Eng. R 20, 125 (1997).
33) L. G. Matus, J. A. Powell, and C. S. Salupo, Appl. Phys. Lett. 59, 1770
(1991).
34) T. Kimoto, T. Urushidani, S. Kobayashi, and H. Matsunami, IEEE
Electron Device Lett. 14, 548 (1993).
35) T. Kimoto, A. Itoh, H. Akita, T. Urushidani, S. Jang, and H. Matsunami,
Compound Semiconductors — 1994 (IOP Publishing, Bristol, U.K., 1995)
p. 437.
36) Infineon Technologies AG [http://www.infineon.com].
37) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation [http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/
products/devices/index.html#hp_devices].
38) L. Cheng, J. W. Palmour, A. K. Agarwal, S. T. Allen, E. V. Brunt, G. Y.
Wang, V. Pala, W. J. Sung, A. Q. Huang, M. J. O’Loughlin, A. A. Burk,
D. E. Grider, and C. Scozzie, Mater. Sci. Forum 778–780, 1089 (2014).
39) N. Kaji, H. Niwa, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices
62, 374 (2015).
40) J. W. Palmour, J. A. Edmond, H. S. Kong, and C. H. Carter, Jr., Silicon
Carbide and Related Materials 1993 (IOP Publishing, Bristol, U.K., 1994)
p. 499.
41) J. W. Palmour, V. F. Tsvetkov, L. A. Lipkin, and C. H. Carter, Jr.,
Compound Semiconductors — 1994 (IOP Publishing, Bristol, U.K., 1995)
p. 377.
42) J. N. Shenoy, J. A. Cooper, and M. R. Melloch, IEEE Electron Device Lett.
18, 93 (1997).
43) J. Tan, J. A. Cooper, Jr., and M. R. Melloch, IEEE Electron Device Lett.
19, 487 (1998).
44) S. Harada, M. Kato, K. Suzuki, M. Okamoto, T. Yatsuo, K. Fukuda, and
K. Arai, IEDM Tech. Dig., 2006, p. 903.
45) P. Friedrichs, H. Mitlehner, R. Kaltschmidt, U. Weinert, W. Bartsch, C.
Hecht, K. O. Dohnke, B. Weis, and D. Stephani, Mater. Sci. Forum
338–342, 1243 (2000).
46) K. Tone, J. H. Zhao, L. Fursin, P. Alexandrov, and M. Weiner, IEEE
Electron Device Lett. 24, 463 (2003).
47) ROHM Co., Ltd. [http://www.rohm.com/web/global/groups/-/group/
groupname/SiC%20Power%20Devices].
48) T. Nakamura, Y. Nakano, M. Aketa, R. Nakamura, S. Mitani, H. Sakairi,
and Y. Yokotsuji, IEDM Tech. Dig., 2011, 26.5.1.
49) S. H. Ryu, S. Krishnaswami, M. O’Loughlin, J. Richmond, A. Agarwal, J.
Palmour, and A. R. Hefner, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 25, 556 (2004).
50) S. H. Ryu, C. Capell, C. Jonas, M. J. O’Loughlin, J. Clayton, E. van Brunt,
K. Lam, J. Richmond, A. Kadavelugu, S. Bhattacharya, A. A. Burk, A.
Agarwal, D. Grider, S. T. Allen, and J. W. Palmour, Mater. Sci. Forum
778–780, 1030 (2014).
51) H. Miyake, T. Okuda, H. Niwa, T. Kimoto, and J. Suda, IEEE Electron
Device Lett. 33, 1598 (2012).
52) Silicon Carbide and Related Materials 2013, ed. H. Okumura, H. Harima,
T. Kimoto, M. Yoshimoto, H. Watanabe, T. Hatayama, H. Matsuura, T.
Funaki, and Y. Sano (Trans Tech Publications, Durnten-Zurich, 2014).
53) S. M. Sze and K. K. Ng, Physics of Semiconductor Devices (Wiley, New
York, 2007) 3rd ed.
54) J. R. Jenny, St. G. Müller, A. Powell, V. F. Tsvetkov, H. M. Hobgood,
R. C. Glass, and C. H. Carter, Jr., J. Electron. Mater. 31, 366 (2002).
55) R. R. Siergiej, R. C. Clarke, S. Sriram, A. K. Agarwal, R. J. Bojko, A. W.
Morse, V. Balakrishna, M. F. MacMillan, A. A. Burk, Jr., and C. D.
Brandt, Mater. Sci. Eng. B 61–62, 9 (1999).
56) T. Kimoto, Tech. Dig. IEEE Custom Integrated Circuit Conf., 2014, 03-1.
57) T. Kobayashi, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, Appl. Phys. Express 7, 121301
(2014).
58) M. Bockstedte, A. Mattausch, and O. Pankratov, Phys. Rev. B 69, 235202
(2004).
59) J. W. Palmour, J. A. Edmond, H. S. Kong, and C. H. Carter, Jr., Physica B
185, 461 (1993).
60) P. G. Neudeck, D. J. Larkin, E. Starr, J. A. Powell, C. S. Salupo, and L. G.
Matus, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 41, 826 (1994).
61) A. P. Dmitriev, A. O. Konstantinov, D. P. Litvin, and V. I. Sankin, Sov.
Phys. Semicond. 17, 686 (1983).
62) S. Nakamura, H. Kumagai, T. Kimoto, and H. Matsunami, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 80, 3355 (2002).
63) T. Hatakeyama, Phys. Status Solidi A 206, 2284 (2009).
64) W. S. Loh, B. K. Ng, J. S. Ng, S. I. Soloviev, H. Y. Cha, P. M. Sandvik,
C. M. Johnson, and J. P. R. David, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 55, 1984
(2008).
65) H. Niwa, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, Mater. Sci. Forum 778–780, 461 (2014).
66) T. Troffer, M. Schadt, T. Frank, H. Itoh, G. Pensl, J. Heindl, H. P. Strunk,
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
and M. Maier, Phys. Status Solidi A 162, 277 (1997).
67) N. I. Kuznetsov and A. S. Zubrilov, Mater. Sci. Eng. B 29, 181 (1995).
68) Y. Negoro, T. Kimoto, H. Matsunami, and G. Pensl, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 46,
5053 (2007).
69) M. Ikeda, H. Matsunami, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. B 22, 2842 (1980).
70) W. Suttrop, G. Pensl, W. J. Choyke, R. Stein, and S. Leibenzeder, J. Appl.
Phys. 72, 3708 (1992).
71) W. Götz, A. Schöner, G. Pensl, W. Suttrop, W. J. Choyke, R. Stein, and S.
Leibenzeder, J. Appl. Phys. 73, 3332 (1993).
72) S. Greulich-Weber, Phys. Status Solidi A 162, 95 (1997).
73) M. Laube, F. Schmid, K. Semmelroth, G. Pensl, R. P. Devaty, W. J.
Choyke, G. Wagner, and M. Maier, in Silicon Carbide — Recent Major
Advances, ed. W. J. Choyke, H. Matsunami, and G. Pensl (Springer,
Berlin, 2004) p. 493.
74) A. Schöner, N. Nordell, K. Rottner, R. Helbig, and G. Pensl, Inst. Phys.
Conf. Ser. 142, 493 (1996).
75) I. G. Ivanov, A. Henry, and E. Janzén, Phys. Rev. B 71, 241201 (2005).
76) Yu. A. Vodakov and E. N. Mokhov, in Silicon Carbide, ed. R. C.
Marshall, J. W. Faust, Jr., and C. E. Ryan (University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia, SC, 1974) p. 508.
77) T. Kimoto, A. Itoh, and H. Matsunami, Phys. Status Solidi B 202, 247
(1997).
78) S. Ji, K. Kojima, Y. Ishida, S. Saito, T. Kato, H. Tsuchida, S. Yoshida, and
H. Okumura, Mater. Sci. Forum 740–742, 181 (2013).
79) N. Sugiyama, A. Okamoto, and T. Tani, Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. 142, 489
(1996).
80) D. J. Larkin, P. G. Neudeck, J. A. Powell, and L. G. Matus, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 65, 1659 (1994).
81) D. J. Larkin, Phys. Status Solidi B 202, 305 (1997).
82) R. C. Glass, D. Henshall, V. F. Tsvetkov, and C. H. Carter, Jr., Phys.
Status Solidi B 202, 149 (1997).
83) D. Chaussende, P. J. Wellmann, and M. Pons, J. Phys. D 40, 6150 (2007).
84) S. A. Sakwe, M. Stockmeier, P. Hens, R. Müller, D. Queren, U. Kunecke,
K. Konias, R. Hock, A. Magerl, M. Pons, A. Winnacker, and P. Wellmann,
Phys. Status Solidi B 245, 1239 (2008).
85) M. Katsuno, M. Nakabayashi, T. Fujimoto, N. Ohtani, H. Yashiro, H.
Tsuge, T. Aigo, T. Hoshino, and K. Tatsumi, Mater. Sci. Forum 600–603,
341 (2009).
86) A. Burk, Chem. Vapor Deposition 12, 465 (2006).
87) H. Tsuchida, M. Ito, I. Kamata, and M. Nagano, Phys. Status Solidi B 246,
1553 (2009).
88) H. Pedersen, S. Leone, O. Kordina, A. Henry, S. Nishizawa, Y. Koshka,
and E. Janzen, Chem. Rev. 112, 2434 (2012).
89) F. La Via, M. Camarda, and A. La Magna, Appl. Phys. Rev. 1, 031301
(2014).
90) T. Kimoto, S. Nakazawa, K. Hashimoto, and H. Matsunami, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 79, 2761 (2001).
91) H. Tsuchida, I. Kamata, T. Jikimoto, and K. Izumi, J. Cryst. Growth
237–239, 1206 (2002).
92) T. Kimoto, A. Itoh, and H. Matsunami, Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 2385 (1995).
93) S. Nishizawa and M. Pons, Chem. Vapor Deposition 12, 516 (2006).
94) S. Yoshida, E. Sakuma, S. Misawa, and S. Gonda, J. Appl. Phys. 55, 169
(1984).
95) S. Ji, K. Kojima, Y. Ishida, S. Saito, T. Kato, H. Tsuchida, S. Yoshida, and
H. Okumura, J. Cryst. Growth 380, 85 (2013).
96) F. C. Frank, Acta Crystallogr. 4, 497 (1951).
97) I. Sunagawa and P. Bennema, J. Cryst. Growth 53, 490 (1981).
98) W. Si, M. Dudley, R. Glass, V. Tsvetkov, and C. H. Carter, Jr., J. Electron.
Mater. 26, 128 (1997).
99) W. Si, M. Dudley, R. Glass, V. Tsvetkov, and C. H. Carter, Jr., Mater. Sci.
Forum 264–268, 429 (1998).
100) P. G. Neudeck and J. A. Powell, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 15, 63 (1994).
101) N. Ohtani, M. Katsuno, H. Tsuge, T. Fujimoto, M. Nakabayashi, H.
Yashiro, M. Sawamura, T. Aigo, and T. Hoshino, J. Cryst. Growth 286, 55
(2006).
102) M. Dudley, F. Wu, H. Wang, S. Byrappa, B. Raghothamachar, G. Choi, S.
Sun, E. K. Sanchez, D. Hansen, R. Drachev, S. G. Mueller, and M. J.
Loboda, Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 232110 (2011).
103) F. Wu, M. Dudley, H. Wang, S. Byrappa, S. Sun, B. Raghothamachar,
E. K. Sanchez, G. Chung, D. Hansen, S. G. Müller, and M. J. Loboda,
Mater. Sci. Forum 740–742, 217 (2013).
104) D. Hull and D. J. Bacon, Introduction to Dislocations (Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford, U.K., 2001) 4th ed.
105) D. Nakamura, S. Yamaguchi, I. Gunjishima, Y. Hirose, and T. Kimoto,
J. Cryst. Growth 304, 57 (2007).
106) P. Pirouz, J. L. Demenet, and M. H. Hong, Philos. Mag. 81, 1207 (2001).
107) D. Nakamura, I. Gunjishima, S. Yamaguchi, T. Ito, A. Okamoto, H.
040103-25
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
Kondo, S. Onda, and K. Takatori, Nature 430, 1009 (2004).
108) K. Danno, T. Shirai, A. Seki, H. Suzuki, H. Sakamoto, and T. Bessho,
presented at 15th Int. Conf. Defects Recognition, Imaging and Physics in
Semiconductors, 2013.
109) T. Kimoto, G. Feng, T. Hiyoshi, K. Kawahara, M. Noborio, and J. Suda,
Mater. Sci. Forum 645–648, 645 (2010).
110) H. Tsuchida, I. Kamata, and M. Nagano, J. Cryst. Growth 310, 757 (2008).
111) J. P. Bergman, H. Lendenmann, P. A. Nilsson, U. Lindefelt, and P. Skytt,
Mater. Sci. Forum 353–356, 299 (2001).
112) M. Skowronski and S. Ha, J. Appl. Phys. 99, 011101 (2006).
113) P. G. Muzykov, R. M. Kennedy, Q. Zhang, C. Capell, A. Burk, A.
Agarwal, and T. S. Sudarshan, Microelectron. Reliab. 49, 32 (2009).
114) S. Ha, P. Mieszkowski, M. Skowronski, and L. B. Rowland, J. Cryst.
Growth 244, 257 (2002).
115) T. Ohno, H. Yamaguchi, S. Kuroda, K. Kojima, T. Suzuki, and K. Arai,
J. Cryst. Growth 271, 1 (2004).
116) H. Jacobson, J. P. Bergman, C. Hallin, E. Janzen, T. Tuomi, and H.
Lendenmann, J. Appl. Phys. 95, 1485 (2004).
117) H. Jacobson, J. Birch, R. Yakimova, M. Syväyärvi, J. P. Bergman, A.
Ellison, T. Tuomi, and E. Janzen, J. Appl. Phys. 91, 6354 (2002).
118) H. Tsuchida, M. Ito, I. Kamata, and M. Nagano, Mater. Sci. Forum
615–617, 67 (2009).
119) M. H. Hong, A. V. Samant, and P. Pirouz, Philos. Mag. 80, 919 (2000).
120) J. J. Sumakeris, J. P. Bergman, M. K. Das, C. Hallin, B. A. Hull, E. Janzen,
H. Lendenmann, M. J. O’Loughlin, M. J. Paisley, S. Ha, M. Skowronski,
J. W. Palmour, and C. H. Carter, Jr., Mater. Sci. Forum 527–529, 141
(2006).
121) Z. Zhang and T. S. Sudarshan, Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, 151913 (2005).
122) H. Tsuchida, I. Kamata, T. Miyanagi, T. Nakamura, K. Nakayama, R.
Ishii, and Y. Sugawara, Mater. Sci. Forum 527–529, 231 (2006).
123) R. E. Stahlbush, B. L. VanMil, R. L. Myers-Ward, K.-K. Lew, D. K.
Gaskill, and C. R. Eddy, Appl. Phys. Lett. 94, 041916 (2009).
124) H. Tsuchida, I. Kamata, T. Miyanagi, T. Nakamura, K. Nakayama, R.
Ishii, and Y. Sugawara, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 44, L806 (2005).
125) X. Zhang and H. Tsuchida, J. Appl. Phys. 111, 123512 (2012).
126) T. Hori, K. Danno, and T. Kimoto, J. Cryst. Growth 306, 297 (2007).
127) S. Fujita, K. Maeda, and S. Hyodo, Philos. Mag. A 55, 203 (1987).
128) X. Zhang, M. Skowronski, K. X. Liu, R. E. Stahlbush, J. J. Sumakeris,
M. J. Paisley, and M. J. O’Loughlin, J. Appl. Phys. 102, 093520 (2007).
129) X. Zhang, T. Miyazawa, and H. Tsuchida, Mater. Sci. Forum 717–720,
313 (2012).
130) J. Takahashi, M. Kanaya, and Y. Fujiwara, J. Cryst. Growth 135, 61
(1994).
131) M. Tajima, M. Tanaka, and N. Hoshino, Mater. Sci. Forum 389–393, 597
(2002).
132) R. E. Stahlbush, K. X. Liu, Q. Zhang, and J. J. Sumakeris, Mater. Sci.
Forum 556–557, 295 (2007).
133) K. X. Liu, X. Zhang, R. E. Stahlbush, M. Skowronski, and J. D. Caldwell,
Mater. Sci. Forum 600–603, 345 (2009).
134) G. Feng, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 110, 033525 (2011).
135) M. Nagano, I. Kamata, and T. Tsuchida, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 52, 04CP09
(2013).
136) S. Ichikawa, K. Kawahara, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, Appl. Phys. Express 5,
101301 (2012).
137) S. Chung, R. A. Berechman, M. R. McCartney, and M. Skowronski,
J. Appl. Phys. 109, 034906 (2011).
138) G. Feng, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 221906 (2008).
139) J. Camassel and S. Juillaguet, Phys. Status Solidi B 245, 1337 (2008).
140) J. Hassan, A. Henry, I. G. Ivanov, and J. P. Bergman, J. Appl. Phys. 105,
123513 (2009).
141) J. D. Caldwell, A. Giles, D. Lepage, D. Carrier, K. Moumanis, B. A. Hull,
R. E. Stahlbush, R. L. Myers-Ward, J. J. Dubowski, and M. Verhaegen,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 242109 (2013).
142) G. Feng, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, Physica B 404, 4745 (2009).
143) S. Izumi, H. Tsuchida, I. Kamata, and T. Tawara, Appl. Phys. Lett. 86,
202108 (2005).
144) I. Kamata, X. Zhang, and H. Tsuchida, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 172107
(2010).
145) M. Benamara, X. Zhang, M. Skowronski, P. Ruterana, G. Nouet, J. J.
Sumakeris, M. Paisley, and M. J. O’Loughlin, Appl. Phys. Lett. 86,
021905 (2005).
146) H. Tsuchida, I. Kamata, and M. Nagano, J. Cryst. Growth 306, 254 (2007).
147) T. Okada, T. Kimoto, K. Yamai, H. Matsunami, and F. Inoko, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 361, 67 (2003).
148) J. A. Powell and D. J. Larkin, Phys. Status Solidi B 202, 529 (1997).
149) T. Kimoto, Z. Y. Chen, S. Tamura, S. Nakamura, N. Onojima, and H.
Matsunami, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 40, 3315 (2001).
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
150) A. O. Konstantinov, C. Hallin, B. Pecz, O. Kordina, and E. Janzen,
J. Cryst. Growth 178, 495 (1997).
151) T. Okada, T. Kimoto, H. Noda, T. Ebisui, H. Matsunami, and F. Inoko,
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 41, 6320 (2002).
152) M. Kitabatake, Ext. Abstr. Int. Conf. Silicon Carbide and Related
Materials, 2013, We-1A-1.
153) H. F. Matare, Defect Electronics in Semiconductors (Wiley, New York,
1971).
154) T. Kimoto, N. Miyamoto, and H. Matsunami, IEEE Trans. Electron
Devices 46, 471 (1999).
155) W. J. Choyke and R. P. Devaty, in Silicon Carbide — Recent Major
Advances, ed. W. J. Choyke, H. Matsunami, and G. Pensl (Springer,
Berlin, 2004) p. 413.
156) H. Fujiwara, T. Kimoto, T. Tojo, and H. Matsunami, Appl. Phys. Lett. 87,
051912 (2005).
157) P. G. Neudeck, W. Huang, and M. Dudley, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices
46, 478 (1999).
158) D. T. Morisette and J. A. Cooper, Jr., Mater. Sci. Forum 389–393, 1133
(2002).
159) H. Saitoh, T. Kimoto, and H. Matsunami, Mater. Sci. Forum 457–460, 997
(2004).
160) N. Ohtani, ECS Trans. 41 [8], 253 (2011).
161) H. Fujiwara, T. Katsuno, T. Ishikawa, H. Naruoka, M. Konishi, T. Endo,
Y. Watanabe, and K. Hamada, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 242102 (2012).
162) H. Fujiwara, H. Naruoka, M. Konishi, K. Hamada, T. Katsuno, T.
Ishikawa, Y. Watanabe, and T. Endo, Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 042104
(2012).
163) M. M. Mathur and J. A. Cooper, Jr., IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 46, 520
(1999).
164) J. Senzaki, K. Kojima, and K. Fukuda, Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 6182 (2004).
165) J. Senzaki, K. Kojima, T. Kato, A. Shimozato, and K. Fukuda, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 89, 022909 (2006).
166) S. Tanimoto, Mater. Sci. Forum 527–529, 955 (2006).
167) J. Senzaki, A. Shimozato, K. Kojima, T. Kato, Y. Tanaka, K. Fukuda, and
H. Okumura, Mater. Sci. Forum 717–720, 703 (2012).
168) K. X. Liu, R. E. Stahlbush, K.-K. Lew, R. L. Myers-Ward, B. L. VanMil,
K. D. Gaskill, and C. R. Eddy, J. Electron. Mater. 37, 730 (2008).
169) S. M. Sze, Semiconductor Devices, Physics and Technology (Wiley, New
York, 2002) 2nd ed.
170) S. G. Sridhara, F. H. C. Carlsson, J. P. Bergman, and E. Janzen, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 79, 3944 (2001).
171) J. Q. Liu, M. Skowronski, C. Hallin, R. Söderholm, and H. Lendenmann,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 749 (2002).
172) H. Iwata, U. Lindefelt, S. Oberg, and P. R. Briddon, Phys. Rev. B 65,
033203 (2001).
173) R. Ishii, T. Miyanagi, I. Kamata, H. Tsuchida, K. Nakayama, and Y.
Sugawara, Mater. Sci. Forum 556–557, 251 (2007).
174) A. G. Milnes, Deep Impurities in Semiconductors (Wiley, New York,
1973).
175) D. V. Lang, J. Appl. Phys. 45, 3023 (1974).
176) S. Weiss and R. Kassing, Solid-State Electron. 31, 1733 (1988).
177) D. K. Schroder, Semiconductor Material and Device Characterization
(Wiley-IEEE Press, New York, 2006) 3rd ed.
178) T. Dalibor, G. Pensl, H. Matsunami, T. Kimoto, W. J. Choyke, A. Schöner,
and N. Nordell, Phys. Status Solidi A 162, 199 (1997).
179) C. Hemmingsson, N. T. Son, O. Kordina, J. P. Bergman, E. Janzen, J. L.
Lindstrom, S. Savage, and N. Nordell, J. Appl. Phys. 81, 6155 (1997).
180) K. Danno and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 100, 113728 (2006).
181) G. Alfieri and T. Kimoto, Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 152108 (2013).
182) C. G. Hemmingsson, N. T. Son, A. Ellison, J. Zhang, and E. Janzen, Phys.
Rev. B 58, R10119 (1998).
183) K. Danno and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 101, 103704 (2007).
184) G. Alfieri, E. V. Monakhov, B. G. Svensson, and M. K. Linnarsson,
J. Appl. Phys. 98, 043518 (2005).
185) K. Kawahara, J. Suda, G. Pensl, and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 108,
033706 (2010).
186) K. Kawahara, M. Krieger, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 108,
023706 (2010).
187) T. Dalibor, G. Pensl, N. Nordell, and A. Schöner, Phys. Rev. B 55, 13618
(1997).
188) T. Hornos, A. Gali, and B. G. Svensson, Mater. Sci. Forum 679–680, 261
(2011).
189) N. T. Son, X. T. Trinh, L. S. Løvlie, B. G. Svensson, K. Kawahara, J.
Suda, T. Kimoto, T. Umeda, J. Isoya, T. Makino, T. Ohshima, and E.
Janzen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 187603 (2012).
190) K. Kawahara, X. T. Trinh, N. T. Son, E. Janzen, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 112106 (2013).
040103-26
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
191) K. Kawahara, X. T. Trinh, N. T. Son, E. Janzen, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto,
J. Appl. Phys. 115, 143705 (2014).
192) J. Zhang, L. Storasta, J. P. Bergman, N. T. Son, and E. Janzen, J. Appl.
Phys. 93, 4708 (2003).
193) T. Kimoto, K. Hashimoto, and H. Matsunami, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 42, 7294
(2003).
194) K. Danno, T. Hori, and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 101, 053709 (2007).
195) B. Zippelius, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 111, 033515 (2012).
196) P. B. Klein, B. V. Shanabrook, S. W. Huh, A. Y. Polyakov, M.
Skowronski, J. J. Sumakeris, and M. J. O’Loughlin, Appl. Phys. Lett. 88,
052110 (2006).
197) K. Danno, D. Nakamura, and T. Kimoto, Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 202109
(2007).
198) T. Kimoto, K. Danno, and J. Suda, Phys. Status Solidi B 245, 1327 (2008).
199) T. Kimoto, T. Hiyoshi, T. Hayashi, and J. Suda, J. Appl. Phys. 108,
083721 (2010).
200) L. Storasta and H. Tsuchida, Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 062116 (2007).
201) L. Storasta, H. Tsuchida, T. Miyazawa, and T. Ohshima, J. Appl. Phys.
103, 013705 (2008).
202) T. Hiyoshi and T. Kimoto, Appl. Phys. Express 2, 041101 (2009).
203) T. Hiyoshi and T. Kimoto, Appl. Phys. Express 2, 091101 (2009).
204) K. Kawahara, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 111, 053710 (2012).
205) J. D. Hong, R. F. Davis, and D. E. Newbury, J. Mater. Sci. 16, 2485
(1981).
206) T. Miyazawa, M. Ito, and H. Tsuchida, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 202106
(2010).
207) T. Hayashi, T. Asano, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 109, 114502
(2011).
208) T. Hayashi, K. Asano, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 112, 064503
(2012).
209) T. Okuda, T. Miyazawa, H. Tsuchida, T. Kimoto, and J. Suda, Appl. Phys.
Express 7, 085501 (2014).
210) Y. Mori, M. Kato, and M. Ichimura, J. Phys. D 47, 335102 (2014).
211) K. Nakayama, A. Tanaka, M. Nishimura, K. Asano, T. Miyazawa, M. Ito,
and H. Tsuchida, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 59, 895 (2012).
212) A. Itoh, O. Takemura, T. Kimoto, and H. Matsunami, Inst. Phys. Conf.
Ser. 142, 685 (1996).
213) J. Crofton and S. Sriram, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 43, 2305 (1996).
214) A. Itoh and H. Matsunami, Phys. Status Solidi A 162, 389 (1997).
215) C. M. Zetterling, S. K. Lee, and M. Östling, in Process Technology for
Silicon Carbide Devices, ed. C. M. Zetterling (Inspec, London, 2002)
Chap. 6.
216) W. Mönch, in Silicon Carbide — Recent Major Advances, ed. W. J.
Choyke, H. Matsunami, and G. Pensl (Springer, Berlin, 2004) p. 317.
217) E. H. Rhoderick and R. H. Williams, Metal-Semiconductor Contacts
(Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K., 1988) 2nd ed.
218) T. Teraji and S. Hara, Phys. Rev. B 70, 035312 (2004).
219) J. R. Waldrop and R. W. Grant, Appl. Phys. Lett. 62, 2685 (1993).
220) M. Treu, R. Rupp, H. Kapels, and W. Bartsch, Mater. Sci. Forum 353–356,
679 (2001).
221) T. Hatakeyama and T. Shinohe, Mater. Sci. Forum 389–393, 1169 (2002).
222) S. Toumi, A. Ferhat-Hamida, L. Boussouar, A. Sellai, Z. Ouennoughi, and
H. Ryssel, Microelectron. Eng. 86, 303 (2009).
223) J. Suda, K. Yamaji, Y. Hayashi, T. Kimoto, K. Shimoyama, H. Namita,
and S. Nagao, Appl. Phys. Express 3, 101003 (2010).
224) F. Dahlquist, C. M. Zetterling, M. Östling, and K. Rottner, Mater. Sci.
Forum 264–268, 1061 (1998).
225) Z. Lin, T. P. Chow, K. A. Jones, and A. Agarwal, IEEE Trans. Electron
Devices 53, 363 (2006).
226) M. Bhatnagar, B. J. Baliga, H. R. Kirk, and G. A. Rozgonyi, IEEE Trans.
Electron Devices 43, 150 (1996).
227) D. Defives, O. Noblanc, C. Dua, C. Brylinski, M. Barthula, V. Aubry-
Fortuna, and F. Meyer, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 46, 449 (1999).
228) M. Noborio, Y. Kanzaki, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, IEEE Trans. Electron
Devices 52, 1954 (2005).
229) A. Agarwal, S. H. Ryu, and J. Palmour, in Silicon Carbide — Recent Major
Advances, ed. W. J. Choyke, H. Matsunami, and G. Pensl (Springer,
Berlin, 2004) p. 785.
230) J. A. Cooper, Jr., Phys. Status Solidi A 162, 305 (1997).
231) V. V. Afanasev, M. Bassler, G. Pensl, and M. Schulz, Phys. Status Solidi
A 162, 321 (1997).
232) T. Ouisse, Phys. Status Solidi A 162, 339 (1997).
233) S. Dimitrijev, H. B. Harrison, P. Tanner, K. Y. Cheong, and J. Han, in
Silicon Carbide — Recent Major Advances, ed. W. J. Choyke, H.
Matsunami, and G. Pensl (Springer, Berlin, 2004) p. 373.
234) S. Dhar, S. T. Pantelides, J. R. Williams, and L. C. Feldman, in Defects in
Microelectronic Materials and Devices, ed. D. M. Fleetwood, S. T.
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 040103 (2015)
Pantelides, and R. D. Schrimpf (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2009) p. 575.
235) M. Noborio, J. Suda, S. Beljakowa, M. Krieger, and T. Kimoto, Phys.
Status Solidi A 206, 2374 (2009).
236) V. Tilak, Phys. Status Solidi A 206, 2391 (2009).
237) T. P. Chow, H. Naik, and Z. Li, Phys. Status Solidi A 206, 2478 (2009).
238) R. H. Kikuchi and K. Kita, Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 052106 (2014).
239) R. H. Kikuchi and K. Kita, Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 032106 (2014).
240) K. Fukuda, M. Kato, K. Kojima, and J. Senzaki, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 2088
(2004).
241) H. Yano, T. Hirao, T. Kimoto, H. Matsunami, K. Asano, and Y. Sugawara,
IEEE Electron Device Lett. 20, 611 (1999).
242) J. Senzaki, K. Kojima, S. Harada, R. Kosugi, S. Suzuki, T. Suzuki, and K.
Fukuda, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 23, 13 (2002).
243) H. Li, S. Dimitrijev, H. B. Harrison, and D. Sweatman, Appl. Phys. Lett.
70, 2028 (1997).
244) S. Dimitrijev, H. F. Li, H. B. Harrison, and D. Sweatman, IEEE Trans.
Electron Device Lett. 18, 175 (1997).
245) G. Y. Chung, C. C. Tin, J. R. Williams, K. McDonald, R. K. Chanana,
R. A. Weller, S. T. Pantelides, L. C. Feldman, O. W. Holland, M. K. Das,
and J. W. Palmour, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 22, 176 (2001).
246) C.-Y. Lu, J. A. Cooper, Jr., T. Tsuji, G. Chung, J. R. Williams, K.
McDonald, and L. C. Feldman, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 50, 1582
(2003).
247) K. McDonald, L. C. Feldman, R. A. Weller, G. Y. Chung, C. C. Tin, and
J. R. Williams, J. Appl. Phys. 93, 2257 (2003).
248) V. V. Afanas’ev, A. Stesmans, F. Ciobanu, G. Pensl, K. Y. Cheong, and S.
Dimitrijev, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 568 (2003).
249) S. Dhar, S. Wang, J. R. Williams, S. T. Pantelides, and L. C. Feldman,
MRS Bull. 30 [4], 288 (2005).
250) V. Tilak, K. Matocha, and G. Dunne, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 54,
2823 (2007).
251) S. Dhar, S. Haney, L. Cheng, S.-R. Ryu, A. K. Agarwal, L. C. Yu, and
K. P. Cheung, J. Appl. Phys. 108, 054509 (2010).
252) L. A. Lipkin, M. K. Das, and J. W. Palmour, Mater. Sci. Forum 389–393,
985 (2002).
253) T. Kimoto, Y. Kanzaki, M. Noborio, H. Kawano, and H. Matsunami, Jpn.
J. Appl. Phys. 44, 1213 (2005).
254) K. Fujihira, Y. Tarui, M. Imaizumi, K. Ohtsuka, T. Takami, T. Shiramizu,
K. Kawase, J. Tanimura, and T. Ozeki, Solid-State Electron. 49, 896
(2005).
255) J. Senzaki, T. Suzuki, A. Shimozato, K. Fukuda, K. Arai, and H. Okumura,
Mater. Sci. Forum 645–648, 685 (2010).
256) M. Noborio, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 56,
1953 (2009).
257) H. Yoshioka, T. Nakamura, and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 112, 024520
(2012).
258) H. Yoshioka, T. Nakamura, and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 111, 014502
(2012).
259) A. V. Penumatcha, S. Swandono, and J. A. Cooper, IEEE Trans. Electron
Devices 60, 923 (2013).
260) S. Dhar, Y. W. Song, L. C. Feldman, T. Isaacs-Smith, C. C. Tin, J. R.
Williams, G. Chung, T. Nishimura, D. Starodub, T. Gustafsson, and E.
Garfunkel, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 1498 (2004).
261) S. Nakazawa, T. Okuda, J. Suda, T. Nakamura, and T. Kimoto, IEEE
Trans. Electron Devices 62, 309 (2015).
262) H. Yano, H. Nakao, H. Mikami, T. Hatayama, Y. Uraoka, and T. Fuyuki,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 042102 (2007).
263) E. H. Nicollian and J. R. Brews, MOS Physics and Technology (Wiley,
New York, 1982).
264) F. Devynck, A. Alkauskas, P. Broqvist, and A. Pasquarello, Phys. Rev. B
84, 235320 (2011).
265) P. Deák, J. M. Knaup, T. Hornos, C. Thill, A. Gali, and T. Frauenheim,
J. Phys. D 40, 6242 (2007).
266) Y. Ebihara, K. Chokawa, S. Kato, K. Kamiya, and K. Shiraishi, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 100, 212110 (2012).
267) T. Umeda, K. Esaki, R. Kosugi, K. Fukuda, T. Ohshima, N. Morishita, and
J. Isoya, Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 142105 (2011).
268) T. Zheleva, A. Lelis, G. Duscher, F. Liu, I. Levin, and M. Das, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 93, 022108 (2008).
269) T. Hatakeyama, H. Matsuhata, T. Suzuki, T. Shinohe, and H. Okumura,
Mater. Sci. Forum 679–680, 330 (2011).
270) S. C. Sun and J. D. Plummer, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 27, 1497
(1980).
271) T. Ouisse, Philos. Mag. B 73, 325 (1996).
272) N. S. Saks and A. K. Agarwal, Appl. Phys. Lett. 77, 3281 (2000).
273) E. Arnold and D. Alok, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 48, 1870 (2001).
274) S. Dhar, S. Haney, L. Cheng, S. R. Ryu, A. K. Agarwal, L. C. Yu, and
040103-27
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
K. P. Cheung, J. Appl. Phys. 108, 054509 (2010).
275) H. Yoshioka, J. Senzaki, A. Shimozato, Y. Tanaka, and H. Okumura,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 083516 (2014).
276) J. N. Shenoy, G. L. Chindalore, M. R. Melloch, J. A. Cooper, J. W.
Palmour, and K. G. Irvine, J. Electron. Mater. 24, 303 (1995).
277) H. O. Olafsson, G. Gudjonsson, P.-A. Nilsson, E. O. Sveinbjornsson, H.
Zirath, T. Rodle, and R. Jos, Electron. Lett. 40, 508 (2004).
278) D. Okamoto, H. Yano, K. Hirata, T. Hatayama, and T. Fuyuki, IEEE
Electron Device Lett. 31, 710 (2010).
279) D. Okamoto, H. Yano, T. Hatayama, and T. Fuyuki, Mater. Sci. Forum
717–720, 733 (2012).
280) D. Okamoto, M. Sometani, S. Harada, R. Kosugi, Y. Yonezawa, and H.
Yano, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 35, 1176 (2014).
281) D. Åberg, A. Hallen, P. Pellegrino, and B. G. Svensson, Appl. Phys. Lett.
78, 2908 (2001).
282) T. Ohno and N. Kobayashi, J. Appl. Phys. 91, 4136 (2002).
283) P. O. Å. Persson, L. Hultman, M. S. Janson, A. Hallen, R. Yakimova, D.
Panknin, and W. Skorupa, J. Appl. Phys. 92, 2501 (2002).
284) S. Mitra, M. V. Rao, N. Papanicolaou, K. A. Jones, M. Derenge, O. W.
Holland, R. D. Vispute, and S. R. Wilson, J. Appl. Phys. 95, 69 (2004).
285) H. Tsuchida, I. Kamata, M. Nagano, L. Storasta, and T. Miyanagi, Mater.
Sci. Forum 556–557, 271 (2007).
286) S. Sasaki, J. Suda, and T. Kimoto, J. Appl. Phys. 111, 103715 (2012).
287) A. J. Lelis, D. Habersat, R. Green, A. Ogunniyi, M. Gurfinkel, J. Suehle,
and N. Goldsman, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 55, 1835 (2008).
288) R. Green, A. Lelis, and D. Habersat, Mater. Sci. Forum 717–720, 1085
(2012).
289) M. J. Marinella, D. K. Schroder, T. Isaacs-Smith, A. C. Ahyi, J. R.
Williams, G. Y. Chung, J. W. Wan, and M. J. Loboda, Appl. Phys. Lett.
90, 253508 (2007).
290) A. Chanthaphan, T. Hosoi, S. Mitani, Y. Nakano, T. Nakamura, T.
Shimura, and H. Watanabe, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 252103 (2012).
291) L. M. Porter and R. F. Davis, Mater. Sci. Eng. B 34, 83 (1995).
292) S. Tanimoto, H. Okushi, and K. Arai, in Silicon Carbide — Recent Major
Advances, ed. W. J. Choyke, H. Matsunami, and G. Pensl (Springer,
Berlin, 2004) p. 651.
293) F. Roccaforte, F. La Via, and V. Raineri, Int. J. High Speed Electron. Syst.
15, 781 (2005).
294) S. A. Reshanov, K. V. Emtsev, V. Konstantin, F. Speck, K. Y. Gao, T. K.
Seyller, G. Pensl, and L. Ley, Phys. Status Solidi B 245, 1369 (2008).
295) S. Tanimoto and H. Ohashi, Phys. Status Solidi A 206, 2417 (2009).
296) S. Tsukimoto, K. Ito, Z. Wang, M. Saito, Y. Ikuhara, and M. Murakami,
Mater. Trans. 50, 1071 (2009).
297) C. M. Zetterling, Process Technology for Silicon Carbide Devices (Inspec,
London, 2002).
298) Silicon Carbide — Recent Major Advances, ed. W. J. Choyke, H.
Matsunami, and G. Pensl (Springer, Berlin, 2004).
299) Silicon Carbide, Materials, Processing, and Devices, ed. Z. C. Feng and
J. H. Zhao (Taylor & Francis, London, 2004).
300) SiC Materials and Devices, ed. M. Shur, S. Rumyantsev, and M.
Levinshtein (World Scientific, Singapore, 2006) Vols. 1 and 2.
301) Special Issue on Silicon Carbide Devices and Technology, IEEE Trans.
Electron Devices 55 [8], (2008).
302) Silicon Carbide, ed. P. Friedrichs, T. Kimoto, L. Ley, and G. Pensl
(Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2010) Vols. 1 and 2.
Tsunenobu Kimoto received the B.E. and M.E.
degrees in Electrical Engineering from Kyoto
University, Japan, in 1986 and 1988, respectively.
He joined Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. in
April of 1988, where he conducted research and
development of amorphous Si solar cells and
semiconducting diamond material. In 1990, he
started his academic career as a Research Associate
at Kyoto University, and received the Ph.D. degree
from Kyoto University in 1996, based on his work
on SiC epitaxy, material characterization, and high-voltage diodes. From
1996 to 1997, he was a visiting scientist at Linköping University, Sweden.
He is currently a Professor at Department of Electronic Science and
Engineering, Kyoto University. His main research activity includes SiC
epitaxial growth, optical and electrical characterization, defect electronics,
ion implantation, MOS physics, and high-voltage devices. He has also been
involved in nano-scale Si, Ge devices and novel materials for nonvolatile
memories. He has published over 600 papers in scientific journals and
international conference proceedings. He is a member of JSAP, IEEE, MRS,
IEICE, and IEE.
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics