An integral model is proposed for recombination at the silicon/silicon dioxide (Si/SiO2) interface of thermally oxidized p-type silicon via Pb amphoteric centers associated with surface dangling bonds. The proposed model is a surface adaptation of a model developed for bulk recombination in amorphous silicon based on Sah-Shockley statistics which is more appropriate for amphoteric center recombination than classical Shockley-Read-Hall statistics. It is found that the surface recombination via amphoteric centers having capture cross-sections larger for charged centers than for neutral centers is distinguished from Shockley-Read-Hall recombination by exhibiting two peaks rather than one peak when plotted versus surface potential. Expressions are derived for the surface potentials at which the peaks occur. Such a finding provides a firm and plausible interpretation for the double peak surface recombination current measured in gated diodes or gated transistors. Successful fitting is possible between the results of the model and reported experimental curves showing two peaks for surface recombination velocity versus surface potential. On the other hand, if charged and neutral center capture cross-sections are equal or close to equal, surface recombination via amphoteric centers follows the same trend as Shockley-Read-Hall recombination and both models lead to comparable surface recombination velocities.
1. Introduction
Recombination at the Si/SiO2 interface has been classically modeled using the two-charge-state Shockley-Read-Hall (SRH) statistics [1] based on Fermi-Dirac occupation probability. Defects at the Si/SiO2 interface, however, have been identified by Electron Paramagnetic and Electron Spin Resonance (EPR, ESR) as dangling bonds, referred to as Pb centers, precisely located at the Si/SiO2 interface [2–4], and ascertained to be amphoteric [3–6]. Recombination via amphoteric centers is better described by Sah-Shockley recombination statistics [7] which has been used to model bulk recombination due to dangling bond defects in amorphous silicon (a-Si) [8] taking into account the multicharge nature of the centers and the energy correlation between them. Recently, models for recombination via amphoteric dangling bond defects at the a-Si/c-Si interface of heterojunction silicon solar cells using Sah-Shockley statistics have been developed [9, 10], and their application to recombination at the Si/SiO2 interface has been proposed [10].
In the present work a model for surface recombination via amphoteric dangling bond Pb centers at the Si/SiO2 interface is developed based on the available model for bulk recombination in a-Si [8]. The surface recombination velocity is calculated using the proposed model and using SRH classical recombination adapted to the surface. In both models, recombination centers are assumed to form a continuum distributed throughout the energy gap and carrier dependence on surface potential at the thermally oxidized Si/SiO2 interface is taken into account. Comparison between the results of both amphoteric center and SRH models is presented. Finally, by fitting previously reported experimental data with the results of the proposed amphoteric center model, an attempt is made to give a convincing explanation for the double peak surface recombination velocity extracted from recombination current in gated diodes and gated transistors.
2. Surface Recombination Physical Parameters and Models
Let us assume that minority electrons are injected into a p-type silicon region through a pn junction at x=0, travel through the region, and reach its oxide passivated surface at x=W where they recombine with holes. The band diagram at the p-type oxide passivated surface sketched in Figure 1 shows a band bending that extends over a shallow surface space charge layer in the c-Si substrate which results in an electric field extending throughout the layer (surface field layer) and in a surface potential ψs. The surface potential is positive if the bending is downwards (surface depletion) and negative if the bending is upward (accumulation).
Band diagram at a p-type back surface showing band bending, surface potential, and surface field (space charge) layer.
The surface carrier concentrations depend on the surface potential such that at low level injection(1a)ps=p(W)e-qψs/kT≈poe-qψs/kT=NAe-qψs/kT,(1b)ns=n(W)eqψs/kT=[no+Δn(W)]eqψs/kT≈Δn(W)eqψs/kT=noeVF/VTeqψs/kT,(1c)ps×ns=p(W)n(W)≈p(W)Δn(W)=NA×noexp(VFVT)=ni2exp(VFVT),where po=NA is the p-type doping concentration and Δn(W) is the excess minority electron concentration at the inner edge of the surface space charge region associated with a split VF in the Fermi Energy. In (1c) bulk recombination in the very thin surface space charge (field) region is neglected which is usually a valid approximation. Hence, the surface recombination rate Us can be defined at the inner edge of the surface space charge region and is related to the effective surface recombination velocity Seff through
(2)Seff=UsΔn(W).
2.1. Shockley-Read-Hall (SRH) Surface Recombination Model
Surface recombination has been traditionally treated using Shockley-Read-Hall (SRH) statistics which uses Fermi-Dirac occupation probability function (occupancy), f(Et), for recombination centers at energy Et. At equilibrium fo(Et) is given by(3a)fo(Et)=11+e(Et-EF)/kT
which states that the probability of occupation of a recombination center at energy Et is smaller than 1/2 if Et is larger than the Fermi Energy EF, greater than 1/2 if Et<EF, and exactly equal 1/2 when Et=EF.
The SRH surface recombination rate is expressed by an expression similar to the SRH bulk recombination rate with replacing the bulk electron and hole concentrations n and p by the surface potential dependent surface carrier concentrations ns and ps. Unlike previous reports the interface recombination centers in the present work do not occur at a single discrete energy level with a density Nit (/cm2) but form a continuum in the energy bandgap with a state density Dit(Et) (/cm2/eV). Consequently, the SRH surface recombination rate Us is to be determined from the integration over all energies in the bandgap from the valence band edge Ev up to the conduction band edge Ec(3b)Us,SRH=∫EvEcvthDit(Et)(psns-ni2)dEt(ns+nie(Et-Ei)/kT)/σp+(ps+nie(Ei-Et)/kT)/σn.
Using (2), the effective surface recombination velocity can then be obtained from
(3c)SSRH=Us,SRHΔn(W)≈∫EvEcvthDit(Et)podEt(ns+nie(Et-Ei)/kT)/σp+(ps+nie(Ei-Et)/kT)/σn,where vth is the thermal velocity (≈107 cm/s), ni is the intrinsic carrier concentration, Ei is the intrinsic Fermi Energy (midgap energy level), k is Boltzmann constant, T is the absolute temperature, and σn and σp represent the electron and hole capture cross-sections of the centers.
2.2. Surface Recombination Amphoteric Dangling Bond Model
It has been argued that the two-state charge Fermi-Dirac occupation function has some limitations in a-Si abundantly hosting amphoteric dangling bonds [8, 11] and that multicharge Sah-Shockley correlated electron statistics [7] is more appropriate for this case. This may also apply to recombination at the Si/SiO2 where defects are mainly due to dangling bond amphoteric Pb centers. Hence we propose to use the amphoteric center recombination model developed for bulk recombination in a-Si after proper adaptation to the surface as done for SRH surface recombination.
Since the amphoteric recombination model is not very well known to many readers, the main formulation aspects detailed in [8] are repeated in the appendix for convenience. Besides the flaw distribution density Dit(Et), the model parameters include electron capture cross-sections of positive and neutral centers σn+ and σn0 and hole capture cross-sections of negative and neutral centers σp- and σp0. The total surface recombination rate via a continuum of amphoteric centers in the energy gap is obtained by integrating the recombination rate at a single level Us,amph(Et) over all the energies from Ev to Ec:(4a)Us,amph=∫Us,amph(Et)·dEt,
and the effective surface recombination velocity Samph follows from (2):
(4b)Samph=Us,amphΔn(W).
3. Numerical Results
A MATLAB code is developed and used for calculating the effective surface recombination velocity SSRH and Samph, according to (3c) and (4b), at the interface of an oxide passivated p-type Si surface having a doping concentration of 1.5×1016/cm3. The recombination centers, although initially having a U shape distribution [5], are assumed to be uniformly distributed in the energy gap as it happens to be after annealing in hydrogen or forming gas [12–14]. After this technological step the midgap center density drops from the 1011/cm2/eV range to the 1010/cm2/eV and the correlation energy between the centers is in the range 0 to 0.5 eV. The capture cross-sections of amphoteric centers are reported to be in the range 10−16 cm2 [15, 16] and it is widely accepted that σn can be up to 100 times larger than σp [17]. Values for Dit, Ecorr, σn, and σp close to these typical values are used in the calculations carried out here.
As detailed in [8] and repeated in the appendix, the correlation energy Ecorr between amphoteric centers influences the occupation probability which affects the recombination rate and velocity. Therefore two extreme Ecorr values will be considered: (1)Ecorr=0 and Ecorr=0.4 eV. In the first case and according to (A.7), the equilibrium occupation probability of centers considered to be positively charged is high for centers having Et>EF, equals 25% for centers with Et=EF, and vanishes for centers with Et more than 3kT below EF. The probability of occupation for centers considered to be negatively charged is high for centers having Et<EF, equals 25% for centers with Et=EF, and vanishes for centers with Et more than 3kT above EF. Finally, the probability of occupation for centers considered to be neutral is symmetric around EF, equals 50% for Et=EF, and vanishes when Et is more than 6kT below or above EF. For the extreme case Ecorr=0.4 eV the center of symmetry of the occupation probability is moved from Et=EF to EF-Ecorr/2, that is, to 0.2 eV below EF. In that case, the probability of occupation of positive centers is 1/3 at Et=EF, is higher than 1/3 for centers having Et>EF, and vanishes for Et more than 6kT below EF. The probability of occupation of negative centers is equal to 1/3 for centers with Et=EF-0.4eV, is higher for centers with lower energies, and vanishes for centers with Et more than 4kT above EF. Finally, the probability of occupation of neutral centers is 2/3 for Et=EF and Et=EF-0.4eV and almost one between Et=EF-0.3eV and EF-0.1eV.
3.1. Effective Surface Recombination Velocity versus Excess Carrier Concentration
The effective surface recombination velocity Seff is calculated using SRH and amphoteric center recombination models and plotted as a function of the excess electron concentration Δn(W) at the edge of the surface field region. Since nonnegligible positive fixed charges are present in the passivating oxide layer, the p-type surface would be depleted which creates a surface field region, as shown in Figure 1, and results in band bending at the surface and a positive surface potential. Therefore calculations of Seff are carried out at flat band condition (surface potential ψs=0) and for a positive surface potential ψs=0.1 and ψs=0.2 V. The results in Figure 2(a) represent the case where the correlation energy Ecorr is equal to zero, Dit is uniform and equal to 1010/cm2/eV throughout the energy gap, and all capture cross-sections are equal to 10−16 cm2. It is always assumed in the present analysis that the capture cross-sections of the SRH centers and of neutral amphoteric centers are equal such that σn=σn0 and σp=σp0. The impact of asymmetry in other capture cross-sections (σn0/σp0≠1, σn+/σn0≠1, σp-/σp0≠1) and of positive correlation energy will be discussed in later sections.
(a) SRH and amphoteric center surface recombination velocity SSRH and Samph as a function of excess electron concentration Δn(W) assuming all capture cross-sections are equal, Ecorr=0, for ψs=0, 0.1 V and 0.2 V. (b) Amphoteric center surface recombination velocity Samph as a function of excess electron concentration Δn(W) assuming all capture cross-sections are equal for Ecorr=0 and 0.4 eV, for ψs=0, 0.1 V and 0.2 V.
By inspecting Figure 2(a) it appears that SSRH and Samph follow the same trend versus excess electron concentration at the surface, Δn(W). The value of SSRH is larger than Samph but stays in the same order of magnitude. Both values get closer as the surface potential is increased and Samph maybecome larger at higher surface potential or higher correlation energy as will be seen in later sections. For several orders of magnitude in the lower Δn range Seff exhibits its highest value that stays constant, then starts to decay gradually in the higher range, and continues to decay to reach very small values close to unity at high values of Δn. Such a behavior can be predicted from (3c) since, for a constant value of the surface potential, for several orders of magnitude in the low Δn(W) range the ns term present in the denominator is negligible compared to the ps term which results in a constant and high value of SSRH. As Δn(W) increases ns may become significantly boosted such that it starts to affect the value of the denominator of (3c) which results in a gradual decrease in the value of SSRH as depicted in Figure 2(a). At positive surface potential 0.1 and 0.2 V, which are typical values at the p-type surface due to the presence of positive fixed oxide charges in the SiO2 passivating layer, the value of ns is exponentially boosted and that of ps exponentially reduced as predicted by (1a) and (1b) which shifts the onset of Seff degradation to smaller values of Δn. Moreover, due to the reduced value of ps the value of the denominator becomes smaller which boosts the maximum constant value of Seff at low Δn.
3.1.1. Impact of the Correlation Energy between Amphoteric Centers
A major property of recombination via amphoteric centers is that the recombination centers are energy correlated. The correlation energy affects the occupation probability and hence would certainly affect the recombination rate and recombination velocity. In the previous section the correlation energy was assumed to be zero which would logically mean a reduced recombination activity. As depicted in Figure 2(a), the surface recombination velocity via amphoteric centers indeed increases with increasing correlation energy. For a correlation energy Ecorr=0.4 eV close to the maximum value, the surface recombination velocity Samph displayed in Figure 2(b) is more than doubled compared to its values plotted in Figure 2(a) for Ecorr=0 and exceeds the value of SSRH at ψs=0.1 V and 0.2 V. On the other hand, Ecorr does not seem to affect the trend nor the ranges characterizing the dependence of Samph on Δn(W).
3.1.2. Asymmetric Electron and Hole Capture Cross-Sections
It has been reported that the capture cross-section of electrons may be up to 100 times larger than the capture cross-sections of holes [17]. Therefore Seff is calculated assuming that the electron capture cross-sections of SRH centers and of the neutral amphoteric centers are equal (σn=σn0) and are 100 times larger than their hole capture cross-sections such that σn/σp=σn0/σp0=100. Equality is also maintained between capture cross-sections of charged and neutral center (Rn=σn+/σn0=1 and Rp=σp-/σp0=1). The impact of the asymmetry seems to affect only the value of Seff since both SSRH and Samph are boosted by approximately a factor of 100 compared to the results in Figure 2(a) which reflects the ratio between σn and σp but not the general trend it has versus Δn, as depicted in Figure 3.
Effective surface recombination velocity as a function of excess electron concentration for both SRH and amphoteric center recombination for Ecorr=0: (a) at flat band (ψs=0), (b) ψs=0.1 V, (c) ψs=0.2 V. The ratio σn/σp=σn0/σp0=100.
3.1.3. Asymmetric Carrier Capture Cross-Sections of Neutral and Charged Centers
Another fundamental difference between SRH statistics and Sah-Shockley statistics is the possibility in the latter to have different capture cross sections for neutral and charged centers. This would lead to a discrepancy between SSRH and Samph which was not found when capture cross sections of neutral and charged states were assumed to be equal. Indeed, a significant discrepancy is found between SSRH and Samph when Rn and Rp are not equal to one, as depicted in Figure 4(a) obtained for ψs=0.2 V and Ecorr=0.4 eV. These results are obtained assuming equal capture cross-sections of electrons and holes of SRH and neutral centers σn0=σp0=σn=σp. When Rn > 1 (σn+>σn0) the constant value of Samph in the low Δn range is significantly enhanced and the range itself is strongly reduced which is the result of a boost in the product σn+ns strongly affecting the electron capture rate. On the other hand, Samph is boosted in the high voltage range when Rp>1 (σp->σp0) and the range is extended to higher Δn as a result of a boost in the product σp-ps strongly affecting the hole capture rate. In the presence of both asymmetries Rn>1 and Rp>1 (σn+>σn0 and σp->σp0) Samph exhibits a double step behavior resulting from the superposition of the low voltage and high voltage trends displayed in Figure 4(a).
(a) Effective surface recombination velocity as a function of excess electron concentration for both SRH and amphoteric center recombination for ψs=0.2 V, Ecorr=0.4 eV with σn/σp=σn0/σp0=1 for several combinations of Rn=σn+/σn0 and Rp=σn-/σp0. (b) Effective surface recombination velocity as a function of excess electron concentration for both SRH and amphoteric center recombination for ψs=0.2 V, Ecorr=0.4 eV with σn/σp=σn0/σp0=1, Rn=Rp=10, and Rn=Rp=100.
3.2. Effective Surface Recombination Velocity versus Surface Potential
Due to the exponential dependence of the surface carrier concentrations ns and ps on the surface potential ψs, the surface recombination activity is also a strong function of ψs. Such a dependence is very well established and has been investigated thoroughly in previous work [18–20] based on SRH recombination statistics. To our knowledge this work is the first rigorous analysis that treats surface recombination via amphoteric centers at the Si/SiO2 interface, and hence the dependence of Samph on the surface potential needs to be investigated and compared to the classical SRH dependence. Typical results for the effective surface recombination velocity SSRH and Samph versus surface potential are plotted in Figure 5. A single peak in the SRH recombination rate and SRH surface recombination velocity dependence on ψs is predicted by (3b) and (3c), respectively. This peak occurs when nsσn=psσp, which, when using (1b) and (1a), would occur at a surface potential given by (5a)ψs,peak_SRH=VT2[lnNAΔn(W)+lnσpσn].
For T=300 K, σn=σp, and the given typical values NA=1.5×1016/cm3 and Δn(W)=1010/cm3 and according to (5a), SSRH would peak at ψs,peak=0.184 V which is confirmed in Figure 5. Further increase in surface potential results in a decrease of SSRH due to the dominance of ns in the denominator of (3c).
Effective surface recombination velocity versus surface potential for an injection level Δn(W)=1010/cm3, Ecorr=0.4 eV, assuming σn=σn0 and σp=σp0 and different combinations of Rn and Rp.
On the other hand, our analysis proves that Samph versus surface potential is distinguished from SSRH by the appearance of two peaks, one to the left and one to the right of the SRH peak, as depicted in Figure 5. The formation of these peaks is strongly dependent on the ratios Rn and Rp since, like SRH, they correlate to the relationship between the terms involving the products nsσn and psσp. In this case, however, due to the presence of neutral, positively charged, and negatively charged centers, amphoteric center recombination involves four products instead of two, namely, psσp0, nsσn+, psσp-, and nsσn0. Assuming σn0=σp0 the competition between psσp0 and nsσn+ at large values of Rn=σn+/σn0 leads to a first peak when psσp0=nsσn+ occurring at ψs=ψs,peak_Rn given by
(5b)ψs,peak_Rn=VT2[lnNAΔn(W)-lnRn],
which, for example, for Rn=50 results in the low surface potential Samph peak occurring at ψs,peak_Rn=0.133 V which is confirmed in Figure 5. On the other hand, the competition between nsσn0 and psσp- at large values of Rp=σp-/σp0 leads to a first peak when nsσn0=psσp- occurring at ψs=ψs,peak_Rp given by
(5c)ψs,peak_Rp=VT2[lnNAΔn(W)+lnRp],which, again for Rp=50, results in the high surface potential Samph peak occurring at ψs,peak_Rp=0.234 V which is also confirmed in Figure 5. Note that, when Rn or Rp is equal to one, the magnitude of the corresponding Samph peak is small and tends to be close to the SRH value, as explained in Section 3.1, and occurs exactly at the same surface potential Ψs_peak_SRH as predicted by (5b) and (5c) when R=1. Note that the two peak behavior is pronounced only if both Rn and Rp are large and comparable. On the other hand, if Rn or Rp are asymmetric, the peak associated with the larger is maintained while the peak associated with the smaller disappears or shows as a hump or a shoulder at the peak position determined by (5b) and (5c). It is clear that according to (5b) and (5c), the whole plot in Figure 5 may be shifted to the right or to the left by changing the excess electron concentration Δn, and the peak positions may be stretched away from each other or brought closer to each other by modifying the ratios Rn and Rp. The two-peak behavior and the peak-hump behavior have been previously reported for surface recombination velocity deduced from measurements of the recombination current at the Si/SiO2 interface in gated diodes and gated transistors (e.g., [18, 21, 22]). The presence of mobile ions in the oxide layer [21], nonuniformities at the Si/SiO2 interface [18], interface states having different capture cross-sections [22] are previous interpretations for the two-peak behavior which in our opinion still need to be justified.
Using the proposed amphoteric center recombination model a successful fitting is demonstrated in Figure 6 for an experimental double peak surface recombination—versus ns/ps plot previously reported in the literature for a p-type surface doping concentration NA=5.5×1016/cm3 and excess electron concentration Δn=3×1016/cm3 [22]. It is possible to obtain such fitting using several combinations with reasonable values for the parameters Dit, σn0, σp0, Rn, and Rp and therefore there is no need to insist on a specific combination. It is impossible, however, to fit these data using SRH recombination unless mathematical oriented assumptions with no physical justifications are proposed such as splitting the centers into groups with different capture cross-sections. On the other hand, the present analysis firmly attributes the two-peak surface recombination velocity to surface recombination via amphoteric centers with larger capture cross-sections of charged centers than of neutral centers.
Fitting of experimentally measured surface recombination velocity Sgen=Seff×(Δn/p)0.5 versus surface electron/hole concentration ratio ns/ps. Circles: experimental results [22], line: results of proposed model.
4. Conclusions
A model is proposed for surface recombination via amphoteric defects at the Si/SiO2 interface of thermally oxidized p-type silicon surface. The model is an adaptation to the surface of the model developed for the bulk recombination in amorphous silicon based on Sah-Shockley multicharge statistics for energy correlated amphoteric dangling bond defects. The results indicate that surface recombination via amphoteric centers behaves in a very similar way to SRH recombination when capture cross-sections of charged and neutral centers are equal or close to equal. On the other hand, if electron or hole capture cross-sections are larger for charged centers than for neutral centers the surface recombination velocity is enhanced at small or at high excess electron concentration. If both asymmetries are present, the superposition of both trends leads to a double step behavior of Samph versus excess electron concentration. In addition, in the presence of such asymmetries the surface recombination velocity exhibits two peaks versus surface potential, which relate to a larger electron capture cross-section of positively charged centers and to a larger hole capture cross-section for negatively charged centers than for neutral centers. Expressions are derived for the surface potentials at which the two peaks occur. Recombination via amphoteric centers with asymmetric capture cross-sections for charged and neutral centers is a firm and plausible interpretation for the double peak surface recombination velocity extracted from measurements of surface recombination current in gated diode and gated transistor versus gate voltage.
AppendixA. Expression for the Dangling Bond Amphoteric Surface Recombination Rate
The model proposed here is an extension to the model suggested for recombination via dangling bonds in the bulk of amorphous silicon [8] but applied to the recombination via dangling bond at the Si/SiO2 interface. Centers may be neutral T0, positive T+, or negative T- and correlated with a positive correlation energy Ecorr as depicted in Figure 7. Transitions are allowed between dangling bonds and valence or conduction bands such that
(A.1)T++e⟷T0,T0+e⟷T-.
The electron capture rates U1 and U2 represent electron capture processes associated with capture cross-sections σn0 and σn+, and the rates U3 and U4 represent electron emission processes. The rates U5 and U6 represent hole capture processes associated with capture cross-sections σp0 and σn-. The rates U7 and U8 represent hole emission processes.
Schematic of electron flows for recombination at positively correlated dangling bonds.
In the dark, three independent conservation equations can be written.
A.1. The Steady State Electron Recombination Rate Un
One has
(A.2)dndt=Un=U1+U2-U3-U4=0,withU1=nsDit(Et)f+cn+,U2=nsDit(Et)f0cn0,U3=Dit(Et)f0en0,U4=Dit(Et)f-en-,
where f0,+ and cn0,+=σn0,+vth represent, respectively, the occupation probabilities and electron capture coefficients associated with a neutral or positive center.
A.2. The Steady State Hole Recombination Rate Up
One has
(A.3)dpdt=Up=U7+U8-U5-U6,withU5=psDit(Et)f0cp0,U6=psDit(Et)f-cp-,U7=Dit(Et)f+ep+,U8=Dit(Et)f0ep0,
where f0,-and cp0,-=σp0,-vth are the occupation probability and hole capture coefficients associated with a neutral or negative center, respectively.
A.3. The Steady State Rate of Change of T+
One has
(A.4)dT+dt=U1+U7-U3-U5=0.
The emission rates are obtained from the principle of detailed balance stating that each charge state of the dangling bonds must be in equilibrium with the band states such that
(A.5)U1=U3,U2=U4,U5=U7,U6=U8.
A.3.1. Resulting in the Emission Probabilities
One has
(A.6)en0=nsofo+fo0cn+,en-=nsofo0fo-cn0,ep0=psofo-fo0cp-,ep+=psofo0fo+cp0.
The occupation probabilities fo+, fo0, and fo- at equilibrium in set (A.6) are obtained from the solution of set (A.2) through set (A.5) at equilibrium resulting in
(A.7)fo+=11+2e(EF-Et)/kT+e(2EF-2Et-Ecor)/kT,fo0=2e(EF-Et)/kT1+2e(EF-Et)/kT+e(2EF-2Et-Ecor)/kT,fo-=1-fo+-fo0.
Then, by equating Un in set (A.2) and Up in set (A.3), the occupation probabilities at nonequilibrium are obtained and are given by
(A.8)f+=1×(1+ep++nscn+en0+pscp0[1+ep0+nscn0en-+pscp-])-1,f0=1×(1+en0+pscp0ep++nscn+[1+ep0+nscn0en-+pscp-])-1,f-=1-f0-f+.
The recombination rate Us,amph via centers at E=Etis calculated by substituting set (A.8) in set (A.2) or in set (A.3) to get
(A.9)Un(Et)=Up(Et)=Us,amph(Et).
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by Kuwait University Research Administration Grant EE03/12. The authors are indebted to Eng. Mohamed Abdelazim Koura for helping with MATLAB.
ShockleyW.ReadW. T.Statistics of the recombinations of holes and electrons19528758358422-s2.0-3374862180010.1103/PhysRev.87.835NishiY.Study of silicon-silicon dioxide structure by electron spin resonance I1971105262LenahanP. M.DressendorferP. V.Effect of bias on radiation-induced paramagnetic defects at the silicon-silicon dioxide interface19824165425442-s2.0-2084444189210.1063/1.93583PoindexterE. H.CaplanP. J.Characterization of Si/SiO2 interface defects by electron spin resonance19831432012942-s2.0-0020935730PoindexterE. H.GerardiG. J.RueckelM.-E.CaplanP. J.JohnsonN. M.BiegelsenD. K.Electronic traps and Pb centers at the Si/SiO2 interface: band-gap energy distribution19845610284428492-s2.0-002151963910.1063/1.333819LenahanP. M.DressendorferP. V.An electron spin resonance study of radiation-induced electrically active paramagnetic centers at the Si/SiO2 interface1983543145714602-s2.0-002071888710.1063/1.332171SahC.-T.ShockleyW.Electron-hole recombination statistics in semiconductors through flaws with many charge conditions19581094110311152-s2.0-3614901292810.1103/PhysRev.109.1103VaillantF.JousseD.Recombination at dangling bonds and steady-state photoconductivity in a-Si:H1986346408840982-s2.0-000158478810.1103/PhysRevB.34.4088LeendertzC.StanglR.SchulzeT. F.SchmidtM.KorteL.A recombination model for a-Si:H/c-Si heterostructures201073-4100510102-s2.0-7795257493410.1002/pssc.200982698OlibetS.Vallat-SauvainE.FesquetL.MonachonC.Hessler-WyserA.Damon-LacosteJ.De WolfS.BallifC.Properties of interfaces in amorphous/crystalline silicon heterojunctions201020736516562-s2.0-7795096450210.1002/pssa.200982845SteingrubeS.BrendelR.AltermattP. P.Limits to model amphoteric defect recombination via SRH statistics201220923904002-s2.0-8485629908310.1002/pssa.201127277FüsselW.SchmidtM.AngermannH.MendeG.FlietnerH.Defects at the Si/SiO2 interface: their nature and behaviour in technological processes and stress19963772-31771832-s2.0-003021194610.1016/0168-9002(96)00205-7RazoukR. R.DealB. E.Dependence of interface state density on silicon thermal oxidation process variables19791269157315812-s2.0-0018515418CaplanP. J.PoindexterE. H.DealB. E.RazoukR. R.ESR centers, interface states, and oxide fixed charge in thermally oxidized silicon wafers1979509584758542-s2.0-001851807110.1063/1.326732LenahanP. M.BohnaN. A.CampbellJ. P.Radiation-induced interface traps in MOS devices: capture cross section and density of states of Pb1 silicon dangling bond centers2002496270827122-s2.0-003695308910.1109/TNS.2002.805357SandsD.BrunsonK. M.Tayarani-NajaranM. H.Measured intrinsic defect density throughout the entire band gap at the <100> Si/SiO2 interface199278109110962-s2.0-002691014110.1088/0268-1242/7/8/011GlunzS. W.BiroD.ReinS.WartaW.Field-effect passivation of the SiO2-Si interface19998616836912-s2.0-0001420554GhannamM. Y.MertensR. P.De KeersmaeckerR. F.Van OverstraetenR. J.Electrical characterization of the Boron-doped Si-SiO2 interface1985327126412712-s2.0-0022085385GhannamM. Y.MertensR. P.Surface recombination current with a nonideality factor greater than 219891062422442-s2.0-0024683673HillenM. W.HolsbrinkJ.The base current recombining at the oxidized silicon surface19832654534632-s2.0-0020748891HillenM. W.GreeuwG.VerweijJ. F.On the mobility of potassium ions in SiO21979507483448372-s2.0-001849856510.1063/1.326547YablonovitchE.SwansonR.EadesW.WeinbergerB.Electron-hole recombination at the Si-SiO2 interface198648324524710.1063/1.96570