San-SoIt aI?crmnicI vcd. 23, pp.

63-71
Q paluaon Press L~I...1980. Rid i Great Btitain

INTERPRETATION OF C-V MEASUREMENTS

FOR DETERMINING THE DOPING PROFILE
IN SEMICONDUCTORS

G. BACCARANI
and M. RUDAN
Istitutodi Ekttronica, FacolP di Iagcgmia, Univcrsitf~di Bologaa, Bologna,Italii

G. SPADM
CNB-L&oratorio
Lamcl,viade Castagnoli1, Bologna,Italia
and

H. MAESS,W. VANDERVORST and R. VANOvwsrru~~~~

MoratoriumE.S.A.T.,KardiaaalMcrcicrlaan
94,303O
Hevcrlee,Belgium
@c&d 8 Nownber 1978;in rmiscdfotm 17May 1979)

Abduct-The well-known C-V tchiquc for dctcmining the doping profile in s&conductors is reexamined. A
simpliticd m&l is dcvcloped, which takes into account the e&t on the C-V characteristics of the diffusion
polentielia~~~~oftbesemiconductor.Thissrodelkdsannl~ytothesunecondusion
inferred by Kennedyet rrl.frqma few numericalexampks, i.e. the zmwbias majority carrier concentration.instead
of the impurity proflk. is provided by the expression (C3/qes). (dad V)-‘. Parametric formulae for the C-V
cm are propsed in excelkntagreementwith some results of a numerical analysis.

while in MOS capacitors[6]

InoHkrtodfhedopingp4o6kinthcsurface
re&m of a semi-, several techniques have been r, = e(l/C - i/C,) (31
dewloptd:amoIIgtfibse,thedi&rmtial-capacitnac
technique[l, 21 is mostIy suited for low-impurity con- c,b&igtkOXidCcappcitance
centrations, and has therefore been widely used to Equations(i)-(3) are de&l
from a depiction ap-
analyze low-dose impkn@d pro6ks(3,41 and doping (ASCE).
proxjmatjon with an abntpt space chaqtc edge
redistribution pbenomeae occurrkgduringthermal In addition, the majority-car&r distribution in the neu-
oxidatiox@J. tral region is assumed to exactly coincide with the inr
Although a number of papers h&e been dealing with purity distribution.
the usefulness of this technique, conclusions have been Several ihnitationsa&t the use of this technique. As
drawn mostly from numerical results kaving open the regards the range of depths over which the measure-
question whether or not refinementscould be introduced ments can be performed, it has been shown that, when
in order to improve tbe reliabilityof the method. the depktion width is smaller then about three times the
Itistheaimofthispepertoshowthatfor.continuous Debye length, the depktion approximation no longer
pro&s the use of a simplifiedmodel leads anaiyticaIiyto holds[6], and the effects of majority carriers have to be
tbe conclusions which were obtained on a numerical taken into account. This has been done for slowiy-
basis by Kennedy, Murley and Kleinfeider (KhUQJ7J. va#ng doping profiks[8] thus extendingup to the semi-
The impurity concentration ND(x)is usually expressed conductor surface the measurable range of impurity
by111 concentration. On the other hand, an upper limit to the
expiorabie depth is set by avalanche multiplicationwhich
occurs when the surface fkid exceeds the breakdown
ND(&)= fc)lqf.)(~)-’ (1) value.
As regards the accuracy of the method, Kennedy,
where C = C(V) represents the differential capacitance Muriey and Kkinfeider (KMK) inferred from a number
per unit area at the applied voltage V, and x, is the of numerical calculations that eqns (1) and (2) lead to
depletion width. In Schottky barrier diodes .the majority-carrier distribution at zero bias which, for
large impurity gradients, can appreciably differ from the
x, = dC (2) doping density[71. A correction term was therefore ad-
ded to eqn (1) to take into account this effe-ct[9].
tl’rcsen~address:XX-ATE!3 &gate Brianza.M&no,Italy. Subsequent papers showed that the identification of
SHM. is sponsoredby the National Fonds voor Wetcnschap the “effective profik” (1) with the zero-bias majority-
pelijk Ch&erzock. carrier distributionis only approximat’e[M-12],and errors
65
66 G. BACCARANIet al.

mayarisewhenthe impurityprofilechangesrapidlyover
the extrinsicDebye length.All the above papersrely on
a few numericalexamples.
Finally, Verjans and Van Overstraeten (VVO) con-
sidered the effect of the Fusion voltage arising from
the Merencc in doping level between the bulk of the
semiconductor and the edge of the spaccchafge
layer[l3], and determined parametric formulae for the
capacitance-voltagerelation.
It is shown in.Appendix A that. in principle, an exact
determination of the doping profile can be obtained by
solving a 3rd order pa&i differential equation with
suitable boundary conditions. From the Poisson equa-
tion, the doping profile is then expressed in terms of the
2nd derivative of the electric potential. Because of the
large errors usually associated to the evaluation of the
2nd derivativeof a numericallydeterminedfunction,
however, such a procedureis not warranted,and we
shallnot attemptsuch a methodof dution.
Instead,we deriveanalyticallyKMKs result by means
of a simpMed model which, whik assuming an abrupt
space-charge edge, takes into account the effect of the
quasi-neutralregion on the potential dishibution within
the semiconductor So w we show that the effect of I

the d&&m pot&al investigated by (WO) is fully 0 1 2 3

inch&d in KMK.9result. x/Lo
In addition, parametric equations of the C-V relation Fw. I. GaussianproAlewith exponeatialtail (ND)aad the
are derivd and the resultin characteristicsare com- majoritycarrierconcuttmtion(~0)underzerobiasas a function
paredwithafewresultsofanumeri&anaiysis. of depth nom&4 to the bulkcxtrinsiiD&ye length.Also
shownis the real majoritycarrierproI&(nd for a depktion
widthx, = 1.15L~The shadedregionsshowthe dipolelayer
definedby eqn(13).
LTIIEORY

In this !&&ion the surface capacitance C, of an in-

homopeaeoltsly doped semiconductor is derived. The
analysisiscarriedoutbynegk&ngthecon&ibutionof imposingtheboudaryconditionsatx=L,thesuIfoce
minority carrkrs. The following coM&ations apply electric potential can be found readily as
therefore both to !Scbottky barrier diodes and to MOS
cap&&is puked from accumulationto deep depktion.
The spatialdistriition of majoritycarriersis assumedto
r’S[x.P(x)dx
‘
(6)
be givenby
where p(x) represents the space charge density in the
n(x)*Oforx<x, Ma) semiconductor.
Consideringqn (4) this yields
n(x) = &x) for x > x, Mb)

wherex, is the depktion widthand no(x)representsthe

ekctron distributionfor x, -0 which can appreciably
d&r from the dopingprotie i%(x) as is iUustratedin ‘
1
F& 1 (an n-type semiconductor is considered here but
all the conc~sions of course apply as well on p type
+
Xl I
x . WDW - ndx)l dx). (7)

devices). Equations (4) imply an abruptspace charge DilTerencingqns (5) and (7) with respectto x, yields
edtje(ASCFJbut do not involvethe ident&ationof n(x)
and N&x) in the quasi-neutralregion. From the dQ, = q&A dxt (8)
assump& in eqns (4) it follows that the surfacecharge
0, is given by
and
0, = 4 f NJ(x) dx + 9 I,: U%(x)- no(x)1
ti (5)

whereL represents the length of the semiconductor.

By doubk integration of the Poisson equation and
 C-V measuremeats
for dopingprotiks 61

The space charge capacitance C, is thus given by Ng = 10" cm-q No=9.9X10’6cm-3 and o=JOOA
depending on the surface potential, and between
c, +!p, -0.97 k?Iq and -1.19krrlq for (~=xKKIA. For an
(10) exponential doping profile
s I

i.e. the well-knownparallel-platecondenser formula. ND(x) = NB + Noexp ( - x/L) (16)

By remembering the relation proposed by Kennedy
and O’Brien191for the balance of diffusion and drift the variation is smaller from - 1.06kZ7q to - 1.2k?7q
components for L=5OOA and from -0.99kVq to -1.04kZ7q for
L=~Au~gthesamevaluesforNoandNg.FOr
abrupt protIles the variation depends on whether the
N,(X)-&(X)=-y$ & y
[ 3 (11) contact is at the high or low doping level side. A 100:1
high-lowratio was considered.If the contact is at the low
side a variation between 0.77(k?‘Iq) and 2(kZ7q) is found
eqn (7) canbe solved to yield within three Debye lengthsat both sides of the transition
pointfromlowtohigh.Ifthecontactisatthehighside
the variation is only between (k7i’q) and 1.44(kTIq).
6=(-&)~X.ND(X)dx These results are in agreement with the conclusions
obtained by Johnson et cL[lll. So it is reasonable to
+T ,$!gL_._ xt dno(x)
C nom dx II (12)
r,
assume

Atj = -knq (17)

where NB represents the constant substrate dopii den-
sity and thus the bulk majority carrier concentration. for most doping pro&s at any value of the potential.
It is worthwhileto point out that the assumptionof an Verjans and Van Gverstraeten[l3] postulate that dd,
abrupttransitionbetweentbespacechargeregionand is given by
the quasi-neutral region introduces an error in the
expression (7) of the surface potential. If we define the
depletion width xc as follows
II L + (Wq)- 1 *s!w
no&)
dxl
dX I X,
(18)

I0
n&x)dx =
I
Y
bow - rxll dx (13)
WhCEtheyStlltCthUthCfESttamOftbtigltth8DdSidC

qn (5) provides the correct value of Q,, while the representsonlythecontriiduetoagradual

contribution to the surface potential which has been
neglected in qns (7) and (12)is given by
A& = q/e,
depletion of the space charge layer while the second
term gives the variation of the diffusionpotential due to
a change in xr. Chrrprevious analysis however shows that
dq5, is given only by the first term of (18). This term
already contains the variation of the diffusion potential.
This is clear if one considers qn (9) where

-Ix;
x *bow- &e&l1 q. (14) (q/e) *x#*ND&) dxr gives the variation for 4, due to a
further depleting of the space charge region while the
term (q/e,)x,[(ND(k)- n&)1 dx* gives the contribution
One can easily prove that for a homogeneously doped to d4, of the variation of the diffusionpotential. So the
semiconductorthis contrii yields - Wq rcg8rdless parametric expressions derived by (VVO)contain twice
of the applied voltage or impurity concentration[l4]. the contriition of the d&&m potential and therefore
For spatially varying protiles we computed this con- will yield ns vahres for the majority carrier con-
tribution using a program which solves the Poisson centration as will be shown in the next section.
equation. Stat&g from a given imp&y profile we From qns (9) and (10)immediatelyfollows that
obtained both ndx) and R&X) for di&rent values of
the surface potential.
(19)
By using qn (13)we determmedx, and used this value
to evaluate A4, in qn (14).This was done for d&rent
shapes of the impurity profile. only for very steep which corresponds to the conclusion reached by (KMK)
pro&s will the variation of A4, with 4, be important on a numericalbasis. From qn (19)it is straightforward
and will eqn (10)not be correct anymore. to derive the relationship
For example, for Gaussian doping profiles as used in
Section 3 of this paper where 09)
ND(X)= NB+ Noexp ( - x’12a3 (15)
where Vistheappliedvoltageandwhichisvalidfor
A4S varies between -1.05kZJq and -1.36k7lq for both !Ichottky barrier diodes and MOS capaWrsr5l.
68 G.BACCARAM &al.

3. CAPACITANCE-VOLT- BELATIONSHP

la Section we compare the results given by the

this
parametric eons (10) and (12) with exact computer
solutionsand later on show that eqn (20)yields the exact
majority carrier concentration from which the impurity
N:-99N0
70 7
concentration might be derived using eqn (11). -PRESENT MOOEL
The parametric eqns (10) and (12) with x, as a N
lCOWUTERWULATlON 6
\Ey
-I ecJ, \
parameter include the equilibriummajority carrier con-
centration and its derivative at x, which are not known
unless numerical integration of the Poisson equation is
performed. However, we observe that the 2nd term in
(12)represents a correction which is expected to be small
if the doping profile is not chanpingabruptly, and so we
substitute the electron concentration &x) at x = k with
the doping density Ndx,). Taking additionally into ac-
count eqn (17).we assume
oL ’
0 100 200
NORMALIZED SURFACE POTENTIAL

Fii. 3. capgcitancevs norm&e4f surface potentialcharsc

+(kVq) hl$&+$~~ -I]. (21) teristicsfor two exponentialimpurityprofiles.
( D D x,

Eqations (10) and (21) mpresent the approximate

parametric eqWions of the capucitan~voltage rela-
tionship.In order to check their accuracy three examples
are considered. The tirst one is the case of a Gaussian
4s =-m)(f*(~-t(~)
doping profile superimposed to a constant background x b%~~ . [I - exp( - x32dl
doping. In the second one an exponential doping protile
is assumed and in the third example a combination of - (xd& [ 1t (%/No) exp (~,~/2a31-’
both former protYes is considered. Fast we solve the
Poisson equation in the .semico&Wr and subsequently -InU+(NdAWexp(-Xr2/2u%t I] (22)
we determine the capacitance-voltage characteristics.
ThisisdonebyusingamethodouthnedinAppendixB where LD = (&~q2Ns)“2 is the extrinsic Debye length
and by using the equivalent circuit model method[l~. in the bulk of the semiconductor.
The correspondingC, = C,(f$,)curve is represented in
(i) Gaussionpm& Pig. 2 for two values of the standard deviation, namely
This pro& is described by eqn (15). From eqn (21)we o=500Aanda=2000A.Thedotsrepresenttheresults
find of the numerical analysis and an excellent agreement is
observed.
100 10
No).W,.N,r-'%*'
9 @0.2oooa 9
4 \ (ii) Ji?xpotrattiaipm~
This profile is described by eqn (16). Equation (21)
yields
-PRESENT
MODEL

4s = -~M9)[~xJLD)I
t (iVdNB)(UL~)*[l -(I+ XL) exp(- xdL)l
-(x&J .[I + WdNd - expbLll-’

-ltt[l two/Iv*bxPwJltI). (23)

0 100 200 300 400

The correspondingC, = C,(4,) curve is comparedin Fw.
NORMALIZE0 SURFACE 3 with numericalresults for two values of the attenuation
POTENTIAL

WJ&/kT factor, i.e. L, = 500A and L, = 2OuO A. Once again an

fig. 2. capacitancevs lWmE&edsurface petelltialcharac- excellent agreement is obtained, substantiatingthe vali-
teristicsfor two Gaussianimpuritypro&. dity of relationship (21).
 C-V mcasuremls
(iii) Gauwianpnqile with exponential tail
Thispro6lecanbedescribedas
for x < a t uND(x)
= NB t Noexp I- (x - a)‘/2a7
Wa)
for x h (I t UN&) = NB t Noexp ( - 0.5)exp {
- [x -(a + u)J/u}. (24b)
An expressionfor 4, can be derived in the same way and
is a combiion of eqns (22)and (23).The corresponding
C, = C,(&) curve is represented in Fii. 4 for two sets of
parameters toge&r with numerical results. Even for
these two cases of Fii. 4 with small substrate dopingand
small standard deviations the agreement is very good
except for the range of x( values where eqn (21)is not a
good approx&tion. For these values of x( ND(X)and
ndx)arebeWlingrathersnudiandtheirvahlesandthe
values of their derivatives are too much different as can
be seen from Fig. 1. In this range the value of x,
conrsponding to the 4S value in eqn (21) can strongly
differ from the exact value XLaccordii to condition (13)
and which is found from the compu& sdution for the
same value 4, of the surface potential. If this value x; is
used in eqn (lo), however, we again find the exact value
for C, which again proves the validity of the theory. For
exampk, for the Gaussian-cxponcnti profile with a
subs* dopii of 7.10’.cm-’ a starting value of 0.7p
forx,givesavaiueof4.64Vfor~,usingqn(21)anda
Mhw for C, of 152nF/cm’. The coplpllta proearn,
however, gives for the same dS a value of 0.78P for x;
accord& to co&ion (13). This x: 8ives a C, of 13.65
nF/cm’ which is in good mt with the exact value
of 13.8nF/cm’.
‘lo:
Fii. 4. Capacitance vs did surface potentialcharac- (VVO) is only important in case of steep profiles corn-
teristicsfor twoGaussianprofikswithexponentialtails.
for dopingprofiles 69
N,,., : eq 1241
- exact wa
0 1 2 3 4 5
x/L,
FQ. 5. comparism among the exact zro bias majoritycarrkr
dktibution no(-) the distriin obtaked from eqn (20)(0)
aadthe erroneousdistributionobtainedby VVOin Ref.[19 (0).
Inordertofurthercheckthevaiidityofthetheorywe
started from the exact capac&~vottage characteris-
tics produced by the computer for the doping profiles
defined in eqn (24) and used eqn (20) to obtain the
majority carrier concentration as would be the procedure
in case of experimentally-recorded characteristics.
Fmre 5 shows the exact majority carrier concentration
together with the umcentration obtained from eqn (20)
and the concentrations obtained using the procedure of
(VVO). It is obvious that eqn (20) yields the exact
density while the (VVO)density strongly deviates from
the exact one. This has been found for all protiks with
steep fall off and low substrate doping levels.
The foremost problem in findingthe impurity concen-
tration itself, however, is met in the next step where a
double differentiation must be carried out on the
numerically-obtained majority carrier concentration.
This is done by (VVO) using an approximation of the
majority-carrier profile by a sum of Chebyshev poly-
nomialsin order to minimizethe sum of quadratic errors
and subsequentanalytical derivations of these functions.
Whenthe exact majority carrier concentration in Fig. 5 is
used as an input to this program we obtain exactly the
impurity profile for which we started in derivingthe C-V
characteristics. However, if we start from the concen-
trations obtained through eqn (2Q)the same output is not
guaranteed.
It should also be emphasized that the error made by
bined with very low doping concentration. The experi-
70 G. BACCARANI
ef al.

mental prcfiks by (VVO)[l3] do thereforenot

obtained Note added in pnwf. After therevisedversion of this work had
muchdifferfromthe realones in spite of the erroneous been forwarded to the Editor, a paper by M. Nishida dealing with
the same subject, and reaching similar conclusions, has appeared
startingequations. on the IEEE Tmns. Electrot~.Iku. ED36.1081 (1979).The authors
wish to point out that the two works have been carried out
I coNcuJsH)Ns independently, without any exchange of information.
We have shown that the resultby KMK,accordingto
which eqn (1) provides the zero-bias majority-carrier .uY%NDlxA
A new method for the determination of the doping profik from
concentrationinstead of the doping protIle,can be C-V measurements is outlined in this appendix. The starting
derived from a model which makes use of an AXE point of this method is the Poisson equation
approximation,without identifyingrt&) and ND(x) in
the neutralregion.The above resultwas inferredfroma
few numericalexamples:it is derivedhere analytically,
3=
-t&A . U%(x)- neCXPWlkT)I (Al)
and its limitationsarethereforeidentifiedin thateqn (12)
where ne represents the asymptotic value of the majority wrier
does not take in full account the contributionto the concentration. In (At) the contribution of minority carriers to the
surfacepotentialof a dipole layerrepresentedin trig.1. space charge is neglected, thus #nderiq the present analysis
This correction however is shown to be almost in- suitabkforSchottkybarrierdiodesandMO!3capacitorspulsed
dependentof the protile and the densities, exception fromaccumuiatkmtodeepdepktiorLThecxtensiontothecase
of an MOS capacitor in quiiii is easily obtained by inctud-
madefor abruptprotiles. iq minority carrkrs in qn (Al).
New parametric equationsfor the C-V clwacteristics The ekctric potential d is a function of .r and also of the
of a non-uniformlydoped semiconductorare proposed, applied voltage. By di%encing both terms of qn (Al) with
and shown to be in excellentagreementwith numericai respect to v, we get
results in some relevant situations,where a Gaussian
profile,an exponentialdopingprotileor a combinationof
both have been assumed.
EIquatioa(21) breaksdown when the doping protile where Lo = (f,k?hfn~~)“~ is the exthic Debye length in the
changesabruptly,becauseof the presenceof the deriva- bulk of the se&onductor.
tive of I%(X)in the same equation.In this case, sub surfaceThesp@XC~~(V)isrelatedtotheekctricBeklatthe
by the Gauss theorem, i.e.
stihuionof II&) with ND(X)in eqn (12)is not aliowable,
andthe C-V curveciinbe derivedonlynumerically.It is
shown that the use of eqn (20) yields the exact majority
catrierconcentrationfromwhicheventuallythe impurity
aad the diikrcntial capacitance is, by d&tit&
concentrationcan be derived.
c+-f,g$l s-0
.
The boundary conditions to be imposed to eqn (AZ) taking
1. J. HiJibrand and R. D. Gold, RCA J&u. 21,245 (MO). account of eqns (A3) and (A4). BIGthe foBowing
2. A. S. Grove, pl?ysics and Technology of Semiconductor
&u&s. Wiky, New York (1967).
3. T. E. Seidel, Ion Itu&rtath in Semicouducfom (Bdited by
I. Rune and J. GrauB. Sminner-Verlait. Berlin (1971).
4. R. A.-Moline. L Appl. +flys:a. 3553-&I).
5. W. Van Gelder and E. H. NicoBian.1 Ekctruchem. Sot. 118,
138(1971).
6. Y. zoth& &lid-St. ‘EIectlvu Ii. I24 (1973).
7. D. P. Kennedy, P. C. Murky and W. Kkinfekkr. IBM /. wherethefunctionf(V)dependsonUKBBtUnofthC&viCC
R&v.am. I& 399 (1968). under consideration. For a Schottky barrier diode
8. K. Zii, E. Klausmann and S. Kar, So/id-St. Ekctrou 18,
189(1g5). f(v)= V- VD (Aa)
9. D. P. Kennedy and R. R. O’Brien. IBM/. Res. iku. 13. 212
wm V, being the diffusion potential.while for an MOS capacitor
10. W. E. Csrter, H. K. Gummel and B. R. Chawla, Solid-St.
&ctml. IS. 195(1972).
II. W. C. Johnson and P. T. Pam&s, IEEE Tmns. Ehctron
As. -11,965 (1971).
12. C. P. Wu, K. C. Dm@as and C. W. Mu&r, IEEE Tmns.
i?wnM mm. ED.22.319 (1975). where V, feprcmts the voitagccorresponding to zero surface
13. J. Verjans and R J. Van Overstraeten, Solid-St. EIccrmn18. potcatial.
911 (1975). Equation (A2) is a non&tear. pseudr+paraboiic. partial
14. H. K. Gunuuel and 0. L. Scharfetter, /. Appl. PHys.38.2148 diBerentiaJ equation, the solution of whiih is completely defined
(1967). by the bou&ry conditions (A5). After determining this sohrtion,
IS. H. &es and C. T. Sah, IEEE Tmns. Elrcrron Ikv. EDU. the doping protlle is expressed as
1131(1976).
16. H. K. Gummel. LEEE Tmns. EIcctmn Ikv. Rfh11, 455
(1964).
ND(X)= nB. expW/kT) -(f&l). 2 (A81
17. R. W. Klopfenstein and C. P. Wu, IEEE Trans. Electnm
Lb. ma. 329 (1975). as turnsout from qn (AI).
 C-V measurements for doping profiles 71

APPEWMXB In order to determine the semiconductor capacitance C,, the

In order to solve the onedimensional Poisson equation with an Poisson equation has been linearized, giving
arbitrary doping concentration No(x), the Gummel iteration
schemell6] with a variable stepsixe[l’l] has been chosen. The
assumed zero-order solution &to(x)was (B2)

which has been solved with the following boundary conditions

W(O)= &*
&6(L)= 0. (B3)
for x<x, @Ia) The increment of the semiconductor charge following the
change &$, in surface potential is now given by
and

@lb)

which is obtakd from eqn (12) of the text by sttbsbtutii ND(X) =-q*ns
to Ao(x).In all the prackal situ&ins investigakd in this work,
expWWkT) W(x) dr W)
(Bl) has msidted an excekt zemimkapproxktionofthe
ekctricpoMtial,sothatafewiteratkmsmmnaUysut7icedto and finally. the semicbnductor m is
reach convmgetmy.
InordertogetaroughestimakoftheaccuracyoftheEnal
C*=+$ CBS)
SOhlththCilllpOdSWfpcepOtCll~~,~ScompsndWiththe I
integral
With the above pro&ure, the semiconductor capacitance is
-fde+Ndx) - ne *exp(cp$(xMml*x dx dctmmcd in tams of dilkrential equations rather than by
differencmg of space-charge solutions at different surface poten-
tials.
SO doing round4 error are greatly reduced, and an
and the deviatkms were always less than 0.1%. accuracy of the order of 0.1% is expected.