Optimum structures for gamma‐ray radiation resistant SiC‐MOSFETs

In order to develop highly radiation‐tolerant SiC MOSFETs, we investigated the dependence of the gamma‐ray radiation response on the gate oxide thickness and nitridation processes, used for oxide growth and p‐well implantation. SiC MOSFETs with a thick gate oxide (60 nm) showed a rapid decrease in t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Physica status solidi. A, Applications and materials science Applications and materials science, 2017-04, Vol.214 (4), p.1600425-n/a
Main Authors: Mitomo, Satoshi, Matsuda, Takuma, Murata, Koichi, Yokoseki, Takashi, Makino, Takahiro, Takeyama, Akinori, Onoda, Shinobu, Ohshima, Takeshi, Okubo, Shuichi, Tanaka, Yuki, Kandori, Mikio, Yoshie, Toru, Hijikata, Yasuto
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Channels
Delta rays
device design
Electrons
gamma radiation
Gamma rays
Gates
Implantation
MOSFET
MOSFETs
Nitrous oxide
Nitrous oxides
Oxides
radiation resistance
Radiation tolerance
SiC
Threshold voltage
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In order to develop highly radiation‐tolerant SiC MOSFETs, we investigated the dependence of the gamma‐ray radiation response on the gate oxide thickness and nitridation processes, used for oxide growth and p‐well implantation. SiC MOSFETs with a thick gate oxide (60 nm) showed a rapid decrease in the threshold voltage shift ΔVth of more than 400 kGy, and transitioned to the normally‐on state at lower doses than those with a thin gate oxide (35 nm). The MOSFETs with gate oxides treated with lower concentrations of N2O (10%) demonstrated a higher radiation tolerance (ΔVth, channel mobility, and subthreshold swing) than with a 100% N2O treatment. The MOSFETs with more p‐well implantation steps (three steps) showed a smaller negative shift of the threshold voltage relative to those implanted with two steps.
ISSN:1862-6300
1862-6319
DOI:10.1002/pssa.201600425