Shallow Defect Levels in Neutron Irradiated Extrinsic P-Type Silicon

  • M. H. Young
  • O. J. Marsh
  • R. Baron


Two shallow levels, at 0.027 eV and 0.039 eV from the valence band, measured by Hall effect vs. temperature, have been observed in neutron irradiated, float zone (FZ) grown Si: Ga. The neutron irradiation was for the purpose of counter-doping residual boron by producing phosphorus by neutron transmutation 3 0Si (n, γ)3 1Si → 3 1P + β- to allow the Si: Ga to be used as extrinsic Si detector material. These defect levels are observable after 575° to 625°C anneals. Annealing at 700°C - 850°C removes observable radiation defects. Analysis of the Hall effect vs. temperature data indicates that the two levels are acceptors with concentrations in the range 1014- 1015/cm3, in excess of the B concentration of ≴ 2 x 1013/cm3 measured before irradiation. A proportionality between defect concentration and Ga concentration is observed. The shallow levels appear also in photoconductivity spectral response measurements at 5K. Observations of shallow levels in FZ-grown Si: Al and Si: In will also be discussed.


Hall Effect Shallow Level Float Zone Shallow Defect Neutron Transmutation Doping 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1).
    A. Baldereschi and N. O. Lipari, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on the Physics of Semiconductors, (edited by F. G. Furni, Rome, 1976), p. 595.Google Scholar
  2. 2).
    Irradiations were performed under the direction of Professor R. Hart at Texas A&M University Nuclear Science Center.Google Scholar
  3. 3).
    L. J. van der Pauw, Phillips Res. Rep. 13, 1 (1958).Google Scholar
  4. 4).
    Boron implanted p+ contact regions were formed during the 500°C - 850°C sample anneals. No separate contact anneal step was necessary.Google Scholar
  5. 5).
    R. Baron, M. H. Young, J. K. Neeland, and O. J. Marsh, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Silicon Materials Science and Technology, edited by H. R. Huff and E. Sirtl (The Electrochemical Society Inc., Princeton, N.J., 1977), p. 367.Google Scholar
  6. 6).
    G. S. Blakemore, Semiconductor Statistics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1962), Chap. 3.Google Scholar
  7. 7).
    H. D. Barber, Solid State Electron. 10, 1039 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8).
    Neglect of the temperature dependence-of r above 1000K produces the largest error in the theoretical model used to fit the data. The degeneracy gGa was allowed to become an adjustable parameter in the least squares fit of Eq. (1) in order to compensate for r (T) above ~ 100oK. Assumptions about gGa and r (T) have relatively little effect on the fit of the data over the temperature range dominated by the shallow defect levels (< 77°K).Google Scholar
  9. 9).
    See L. C. Kimerling, H. M. DeAngelis, and J. M. Diebold, Solid State Commun. 16, 171 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. A. W. Evwaraye, J. Appl. Phys. 48, 1840 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. A. O. Evwaraye, J. Appl. Phys. 48, 734 (1977) and references therein.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. H. Young
    • 1
  • O. J. Marsh
    • 1
  • R. Baron
    • 1
  1. 1.Hughes Research LaboratoriesMalibuUSA

Personalised recommendations