Home

Search

Collections

Journals

About

Contact us

My IOPscience

Impurity Scattering in Semiconductors

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article. 1956 Proc. Phys. Soc. B 69 76 (http://iopscience.iop.org/0370-1301/69/1/310) View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details: IP Address: 115.248.130.148 The article was downloaded on 02/09/2012 at 13:07

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

76

Impurity Scattering in Semiconductors

BY R. MANSFIELD
Bedford College, London

MS. recaved 11th August 1955

Abstract. T h e theory of impurity scattering in semiconductors has been developed, and the combination of impurity and lattice scattering has been considered for the general case of any degree of degeneracy of the charge carriers. A comparison is made between theory and experimental results obtained with germanium and indium antimonide.

Q 1. INTRODUCTION H E theory of impurity scattering in non-ionic semiconductors has been discussed by Debye and Conwell (1954) and a formula has been given, which was derived by Herring, for the case of scattering by impurity centres having a screened Coulomb field, when the charge carriers are not degenerate. Mott (1936) has considered the scattering of electrons by a screened Coulomb field in the case of metals when the electron gas is degenerate. Similarly, the combination of impurity and lattice scattering has been considered for the limiting cases of degeneracy. Frequently, however, impurity scattering has to be considered when it cannot be assumed that the charge carriers are either degenerate o r "degenerate. T h e object of this paper is to consider the general case of arbitrary degeneracy and the combination of lattice and impurity scattering under these conditions.

$ 2 . THEORY

2.1. Impurity Scattering T h e expression for the conductivity U is as follows :

where and 7" are the reduced energy and reduced chemical potential of the electrons. Following the theory derived by Mott (1936), the relaxation time is given by
7

= Nz*

(1 - cos 0) [(B) 27~ sin 0dO.

For scattering by a screened Coulomb

N i s the concentration of impurity centres. potential given by

.... . .(2)
where
E

is the dielectric constant

Impurity Scattering in Semiconductors hence

77

1=N
7

u 2 ~ e2 { ~ ~ (x) } ~ f
X

f(x)=log(l+x)- l+x 16n2m*2cv2 X= q2h2 2/(2m*)E2(77k~)312 and 7= nNe4f(x) Substitution of this value of T in equation (1) gives 3 2 ~ ~ m * ( k T ) ~ q3exp(q-q*)dq '31 = 3Ne2h3 {exp(v-q*)+l}2f(x)

where

. . . . . (3)

To evaluate the integral it is necessary to assume that, sincef(x) is a slowly varying function of q , it may be taken outside the integral and calculated from the value of q which makes the integral a maximum. Equation (3) then becomes after integrating by parts 32~~m*(kJ T)~ q2dq .. . . . . (4) u I = N e"3f(x) exp (7 - q*) + 1 where . I ,the value of q to be used to calculate f (x) is given by the equation

......(5) (7- 3)exp ( { - q * ) = t +3. This equation may be solved graphically. Equation (4) is similar to the expression derived by Johnson and Lark-Horovitz (1947), who have considered scattering by a Coulomb field for any degeneracy. I n order to calculate the potential field near an ionized impurity centre and hence t o determine the screening constant q in equation (2) it is necessary to solve Poisson's equation. For the conduction band, let no be the concentration of electrons in the unperturbed lattice and n the concentration of electrons in the perturbed lattice, then, since no is also the density of positive charge, Poisson's equation becomes 4ve V2(+) = - - (no - n).
If F (0) = no and F(O + +) = 12 assume that F ( @+ +) = F (0) -k F' (0) where e@ =maximum energy of the electrons = q * k T and 4n(2m* k T)3f2 F ( @ )= h3 h3 filZ (?*I also then

F' (@)=

4~(2m*kT)~'~ e h3 f i ' z ' (7") k T

4~ e v"+) = + F(0)= q 2 + .

The solution of Poisson's equation then becomes

where

78
Limiting case 7* a 0.

R . Mansfield

and 16n2m*e2 3n0 113 E2h2 ( 7 ) This is the value obtained by Mott (1936) except for the introduction of the dielectric constant. If q* >6 and no = N then
p2 =

T h e equation for the conductivity becomes 3h3e2n0 u I - 167i2e2m"~(x) with x=(a)2s(,) 3n, 1'3 .

......( 6 )

This equation shows that for complete degeneracy, the mobility becomes dependent on t h e concentration of scattering centres only through the term f(s). This arises because although the number of collisions between charge carriers and impurity centres is increased, the energy of the charge carriers also increases, resulting in a greater amount of small angle scattering. Limiting case q*< 0.

f 2 (7")

= 2 exp q* = =3 .
zL=

(2nm*k T)31* 27124 kT)W

A77i32m*12 ef
V%72,@2
(3)

and equation (5) gives Hence the mobility

n,e

-=
x=

where

Gnz*e(kT)'

This is the expression derived by Herring (Debye and Conwell 1954).

Genera1 case. T h e general equation for the conductivity due to impurity scattering can be written as 32e2n2*( k T)3f,(q*) ......(7) "1 = A'e2h3f(x ) where x f ( x )= log (1 + x) - 7
l+X
.y*=

(qh )

$xnz".c )2

. I ( k T ) l 26 h e2(2712*)12f'1,,(7*) '

Impurity Scattering in Semiconductors

79

2.2. Combination o f Impurity and Lattice Scattering T h e expression for the total conductivity can be written as follows :

where uL is the conductivity which would arise if lattice scattering only occurred at the appropriate value of v*, and
W.

log (1+ exp 7") 32e2m*( kT)3f (4

UL

3 h3Ne2

.....(9)
Assuming that f (x) can be treated as a constant, c( was calculated from equation (9), and the integral in equation (8) determined, for different values of 7" and U ~ , U ~ Figure . 1 illustrates the correcting factor F = ( p L + p I ) / p which has to be applied to the sum of the resistivities pL due to lattice scattering and pI due to impurity scattering, to obtain the total resistivity p. When 7" +O the total resistivity is given by the sum of the resistivities and when 7*< 0 the theory of Jones (195 1)and Johnson and Lark-Horovitz (195 1) can be used.

Figure 1.

Combmation of lattice and impurity scattering.

I n order to apply these results i t must be remembered that u r should be c&ulated from equation (7) using the value of 7 = . which I makes the mtegrand of equation ( 5 ) a inaxiinum. T h e appropriate value of 5 19 given by the solution of the equation

.. .. . . (10)
'i'he solution of this equation for the various values of 7" and u,,/'uI which have been considered is given in the table and is illustrated in figure 2. T h e error introduced by assuming that {(x) can be treated as a constant in the Integral was jnvestlgated by determining the value of the integral for a few values of?* and vJu1, choosing the special case of s = 107. T h e difference between the

80

R. Mansfield

true values and the approximate values was less than 3 %. T h e error, however, becomes appreciable if the value of { determined from equation (5) instead of equation (10) is used. Values of
45
03

. Isatisfying
6 6.928 6.878 6.804 6.726 6.630 6.533 6.452 6.388 6.320

equation (10)
3 4.572 4.464 4.366 4.245 4-099 3.950 3.820 3.708 3.575
1$5

F2*

9 9.643 9.600 9.558 9.502 9.433 9.364 9.306 9.263 9.218

9 4 2 1

0.5
0.25 0.111 0

3.725 3.575 3 e446 3.292 3-112 2.927 2.760 2.607 2.391

3.244 3e o 4 4 2.885 2.703 2.494 2.281 2.082 1e888 15 4 3

77*

Figure 2.

Solution of equation (10).

5 3. COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS For a comparison with experimental results it is useful to consider sample.. in which the impurities are all ionized over a considerable range of temperatures, then the concentration of scattering centres is the same as the concentration O! charge carriers and scattering by neutral impurities can be neglected. If the residual conductivity is known for the limiting case 7" $0 then it is possible to calculiite the effective mass of the charge carriers using equation (6), provided the dielectric constant and concentration of charge carriers is known. Tht latter quantity can usually be calculated from the Hall constant and the former determined from the refractive index, if a direct measurement of the dielectrlr constant has not been made. Having determined a value of na*, it is possible calculate 7" using the expression

Impurity Scattering in Senticonductors

81

j2(v*) and f1,2'(7*) may then be determined from tables of these functions (Johnson
and Shipley 1953, McDougall and Stoner 1938). Hence the conductivity arising from impurity scattering for any temperature may be calculated. Over the temperature range in which impurity and lattice scattering are comparable it is necessary to calculate uL using the expression
UL =

2(2i~m*kT)~/~ eulog(1 + e x p ~ ] * ) h3

where U is the lattice mobility at temperature T when the charge carriers are not degenerate. The ratio uL/uImay then be determined, and hence the apprupriate value of obtained and a new value of u1 calculated. It is generally unnecessary to redetermine a value of using the new value of q. The correcting factor F can now be determined from figure 1 and the value of the total resistivity obtained. This procedure was adopted in the case of germanium and indium antimonide. Debye and Conwell (1954) have reported measurements on an impure n-type sample of germanium (specimen 58) in which the conductivity is constant over a considerable range of temperatures. Agreement is obtained between thecry and experiment if it is assumed that E = 16.1 and m*jm = 0.29. In the case of indium antimonide a direct determination of the dielectric constant has not been made, and although the refractive index has been measured, the values obtained by different authors differ appreciably (Breckenridge et al. 1954, Avery et al. 1954, Oswald and Schade 1954). For a comparison with experiment, values of the dielectric constant of 12.5 and 16 were chosen. Barrie and Edmond (1955) have reported values of the Hall mobilities at room temperature of n-type specimens having a range of impurity content. Figure 3 illustrates the theoretical variation of the mobility with concentration and gives the experimentally determined values of the Hall mobilities, assuming a lattice mobility of 80 000 cm2 v-1 sec-1 at room temperature for a non-degenerate sample and that all the impurities are ionized. A comparison in this case is complicated

01
10'6

IO"

, I
10'8

IOU

Concentration o f Electrons (cm-'}

Figure 3. Variation of mobility with concentration of electrons in InSb. The experimental points are those of Barrie and Edmond (1955).

by the uncertainty of the relation between the Hall and conductivity mobilities and also in the actual value of the concentration of charge carriers. For the purer Specimens the concentration of scattering centres is less than the concentration PRoC. PHYS. SOC LXIX, I B F

82

R. Mansfield

of charge carriers, since at room temperature the contribution of intrinsic electrons will become important for n less than 1 0 1 '~m-~I . n this case the calculated value of the mobility assuming n o = & will be too small. When the values of E a d mlm* used in figure 3 are applied to the n-type specimens studied by Madelung and Weiss (1954) reasonable agreement is obtained. I t is seen that the conductivity depends niainly on the product c m j m * and consequently it is not possible to decide on the correct value of m f m * from these measurements.

REFERENCES
AWRY,D. G., GOODWIN, D. W , LAWSON, W. D., and Moss, T. S., 1954, Proc. Php SOCB, 67, 761. BARRIE, R., and EDMOND, J. T , 1955, J Electronacs, 1, 161. BRECKENRIDGE, R. G., BLUNT, R. F., HOSLER, W. R., FREDERIKSE, H. P. R., BECKER, J H, and OSKINSKY, W., 1954, Phys. Rev., 96, 571. DEBYE, P. P., and CONWELL, E. M., 1954, Phys. Rev., 93, 693. JOHNSON, V. A., and LARK-HOROVITZ, K., 1947, Phys. Rev., 71, 374; 1951, ibid., 82, 977 JOHNSON, V. A., and SHIPLEY, F M., 1953, Phys Rev., 90, 523 JONES, H., 1951, Phys. Rev., 81, 149. MCDOUGALL, J . , and STONER, E. C., 1938, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 237, 67 MADELUNG, O . , and WEISS, H., 1954, 2. Naturf., 9a, 527 Mom, N F , 1936, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 32, 281 OSWALD, F., and SCHADE, R., 1954, 2. Naturf., ?a, 611.