Solid-State Electronics, 1975, Vol. 18, pp. 1039-1042. Pergamon Press.

Printed in Great Britain

TRANSIENT CHARGING CURRENTS IN INSULATORS

H. J. WINTLEt
School of Electronic Engineering Science, University College of North Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales

(Received 6 January 1975)

Abstract--It is shown that charging currents in good insulators can be used to distinguish between different empirical
carrier injection laws, if most carriers are trapped according to the Walden model. Schottky injection and power law
injection are considered in detail. The current falls as t-", 0 < n < l. For power law injection the isochronal current
density ./ ~ Ek, where E is the applied field, and it is shown that the apparent power k - I for 0.6 < n < 0.9, whatever
the true power law exponent p. This accords with the experimentally observed superposition theorem. Some
limitations of the power law injection process proposed by Levine are discussed.

INTRODUCTION dependence alone is not adequate to distinguish between

The analysis of steady state current flow in insulators is
ambiguous[i] since a given set of experimental data can
be made to fit a number of the available models equally
well, despite the widely different algebraic form of the
corresponding theoretical expressions, Consequently, it is
also desirable to obtain data for the time dependent
absorption currents which flow following step voltage
excitation. When there is ready injection and little or no
trapping, this transient current flow will be space charge
limited (TSCLC) and this case has been extensively
studied [2, 3]. Somewhat similar results follow for material
in which carrier exit from the sample is blocked [4, 5]. We
are interested in the present paper in the case for which
there is both severe trapping and an injection limited
current[6, 7], and we concentrate upon systems for which
the injection is field dependent. This appears to cover a
number of commercially important systems running from
selenium (linear field dependence)[8] to plastic insulators
(perhaps Schottky injection).
A rather general description of the absorption current
has been given by' Walden[9]. It is assumed that the
injected charge is heavily trapped, causing a reduction in
field at the injecting electrode. This irr turn reduces the
particle current density, and the current falls with time. It
has been shown that the displacement current cannot be
neglected at early times[10], but that subsequently the
total current density follows the relation
j 0: .it [to/(to+ t)]" t >>to
where j~ is the initial particle current density, to is a
characteristic time defined in[10] and n < 1 is an index
which approaches unity as the trapping becomes increas-
ingly effective. We have written only the particle current
term in this equation, and we emphasise that it applies not
only to the case of injection currents increasing exponen-
tially with the field, but also to Schottky law and power
law injection. It is thus of much wider application than has
been suggested by one author[l 1]. It follows that the time
tPermanent address: Department of Physics, Queen's Univer-
sity, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
the various empirical injection laws since it in fact gives
only the index n which relates to trapping, One must also
study the isochronal field dependence which is implicit in
the factor ]~to".
This study of the field dependence is a potentially
useful method for distinguishing between injection
mechanisms, and it has already been employed[10] in an
analysis of the current-time curves of poly(ethylene
terephthalate) (PET)[12]. There it was possible to
demonstrate that the assumed Schottky injection mechan-
ism was not consistent with the data, and that power law
injection provided a better fit.
The purpose of this paper is to point out that while
some care has to be exercised in employing this analysis if
the trapping is severe, i.e. if n ~ 1, it is normally possible
to distinguish unambiguously between the two cases.
Some discussion of the validity of the available models is
presented.
THEORY
It has already been shown (eqn 11 of[10]) that a
pathological result follows from a power law injection if
n = 1: for times t >>to, the transient current is a function
of time only, independent of the applied field. In practice,
this does not occur (see[13, 14] and references in[10]).
Consequently, in the normal case either there is incom-
plete trapping, or the injection Jaw is a more abrupt
function of field than a simple power law, or the Walden
(1) model is too simplified.
Incomplete trapping could be identified by the time
dependence which would be of the form t-", n < l, at long
times. The corresponding isochrone for power law
injection is
] ~ E k t >>to (2)
k = p2(1 - n)/(p - n)
where p is the index appearing in the injection law, and k
is the apparent power law obtained at constant time.
For the moment we set aside the question of the
adequacy of the simplifications, and ask what happens if

1039
SSE VoI. 18, No. 12--A
1040 H.J. WINTLE

there is sharp field dependence of the injection, but still and now it should be possible to separate the two cases
with complete trapping in the bulk of the specimen. We given satisfactory experimental data.
choose the Schottky barrier as an appropriate example.
From the previous results[10] we have APPLICATION OF THE THEORY
One example of the identification of the empirica
j ~ e x p {flsE~/2(l - n ) / k T } x E n n t " t >> to (3)
injection law has already been mentioned[10]. It wa~
shown that the data of Taylor and Lewis[12] on PE]
where /3, is the Schottky coefficient. It follows that the
corresponded to a power law injection with k = 1.79
current isochrones should exhibit a Schottky type of
n = 0.79 and p = 4.7. A number of similar cases haw
behaviour during the transient period. Again a pathologi-
been listed in [10], along with some examples for which
cal case arises when n = 1, when a simple E m behaviour
power law is appropriate.
is forecast. The question arises as to whether the two
We now consider some recent data for low densit~
cases can be distinguished with any certainty when n
approaches unity. We show in Fig. 1 the behaviour of
eqn (3) for various values of n, using Schottky plot
coordinates, while in Fig. 2(a) we show the behaviour of
eqn (2) for various values of k. This figure is com-
plemented by Fig. 2(b) which shows how p, n and k are
related. The isochronal log j vs E ~2 curves are identical
for n = 1 (Schottky law) and k = 0.5 (power law). In the
latter case, the decay rate measured by n is less than unity
over most of the range of p shown in Fig. 2(b). If we
assume that n can be found to within -+ 0.05, then we see
that the effect of the two injection laws could be
distinguished unless p > 10 or p < 1.1. If the experimental
value of n is 0.9, then the log j vs E ~t2 has a much less
marked curvature in the Schottky case than any of the ~2
power law plots in the lower field region 8
4-
0
(E": < 3 MVmm 1~2,or E < 105 V cm -~) g~

0.~ C
I I
0 5 10 15
E 1/2 ( M V l m f / 2

18

10 P

)[ 1 I J
0 5 10 15 0 012 014 (~6 016 110
E 1/2(MV/m) 1/2
rq

Fig. 1. Plot of isochronal currents in insulators under Schottky
injection law conditions, eqn 3, in the time-dependent region.
Schottky plot coordinates are used, and a dielectric constant of 2.3
is assumed. Values of the trapping index n are given on the
graphs.
Fig. :2. (a) Plot of isochronal currents in insulators under powe
law injection (eqn 2) in the tin]e-dependent region. Values n
apparent power exponent k are marked on the graphs. Sam,
coordinates as in Fig. 1. (b) Plot of apparent power exponent k a
a function of true exponent p and trapping index n.
 Transient chargingcurrents in insulators
polyethylene. R6hl and Fischer[13] have presented
results of ](E) at various temperatures for currents
measured up to ] 0 4 s e c after voltage application. They
showed that a power law fitted their isochronal results,
while a Schottky plot also gave an approximate fit. The
slope of their Schottky plots was about 50% greater than
/3s. The slopes in Fig. 1 are all less than /3,, so that
Schottky injection and trapping is unable to account for
their data. Close inspection of their Schottky plots reveals
curvature of the form shown in Fig. 2(a), and the authors
in fact showed that their results fitted a power law quite
well. Their decay rates did not show a constant value of n
at all temperatures, but the change of slope with time was
relatively slow. Their results, and the value of p deduced
from them, are given in Table 1. Where n is constant, their
results correspond to a square law injection.
Another set of data has been obtained by Das Gupta et
al. [15, 16]. This work again refers to readings taken in the
time dependent region, albeit the rate of change is slow,
and the Walden model can be tested. Once more a power
law fit is appropriate, with k = 2.7, n - 0 . 5 and conse-
quently p - 5 .
POWERLAW CHARGING
We have shown that power law injection seems to
occur into a number of high resistivity materials. If such
power law injection is indeed a widespread feature of
metal-insulator contacts, then Fig. 2(b) shows how the
apparent linearity or near-linearity[17] comes to be
obeyed. For any reasonable amount of trapping, say
0.6 < n < 0.9, then the apparent power law k is approxi-
mately unity for a wide range of values of p. Thus the
superposition theorem will appear to be obeyed, at least in
limited form, for the charging currents. The discharge
currents will be discussed later.
A possible explanation for power law injection has been
given by Levine [18]. He showed that a metal-
semiconductor junction held in reverse bias coud be
controlled by the filling of surface states. If the surface
states are exponentially distributed in energy, then the
power law is obtained. We have p =- Eo/kT, where Eo is an
energy characterising the trap distribution. The more
uniformly distributed the traps are in energy, the larger is
E(,. The same model can apply to insulators with the
following provisos.
1. For the sake of definiteness we consider an insulator
in which such charge motion as does take place is
dominated by electrons. Then we define a forward biased
junction in the conventional way employed for metal-
semiconductor Schottky barriers: an interface at which
the insulator is negative with respect to the metal
electrode will tend to eject a greater number of carriers
Table I. Injection into polyethylene, data from R6hl and
Fischer[13}
Tempez,atupe, °C 88 76 55 uO 23
k (obsevved) !. 5 l. 8 2.0 2.7 3.1
n (observe~) O. 35 0,23 0,12 0.164 0.41 '%
p (f~om Eq.{2)) l.g 2.1 2.1 3. u 4.8
'% n not constant with time
1041
from the insulator, and is therefore under forward bias.
This situation is shown in Fig. 3.
2. In a metal-insulator-metal structure, one junction
will be forward biased and the other reverse biased. What
distinguishes an insulator from a semiconductor is that the
supply of carriers is negligible in the insulator, so the
particle current extracted from the insulator at the
forward biased junction is very small, and will barely
exceed the reverse flow from the metal. At the other
contact, however, the rate of carrier injection from the
metal will be enhanced by the proposed surface-state
mechanism. This is therefore the junction of (relatively)
easy carrier flow, and the conventional label of this as the
reverse-biased junction conveys a false impression.The
difference between the net particle currents at the two
junctions is accounted for by trapping somewhere in the
bulk until the final steady state is reached. This is also
shown schematically in Fig. 3.
3. There must be a depletion region adjacent to the
surface, which implies that there is a considerable
inhomogeneity between surface and bulk. The material
would otherwise behave as a conventional semiconduc-
tor. It is conceivable that this inhomogeneity is not
essential and that the appropriate space charge is itself
controlled by the surface states[19, 20], with or without
significant interpenetration of the two clouds[21]. The
simple space charge model[22-24] is inappropriate since
in this case the interface is transparent to carriers. Clearly
the details require further elucidation but they are not
germane to the rest of this paper.
4. Whatever the details of free and trapped charge
adjacent to the contacts, the image forces are omitted in
Levine's model. This must arise because the screening
length is shorter than the distance from the interface to
the peak of the Schottky injection potential, and again this
implies that the region adjacent to the interface must be
relatively conducting.
5. On applying a d.c. voltage step, there will be an
c o n v e n t iooaf reversQ
conventional
~ ' ~ - - n - t y p e carriers
inJection I d r i f t drift <injection
net net
Fig. 3. Sketch of energy levels in a metal-insulator-metalsystem.
The dielectric is assumed to carry current by means of electrons,
and the junctions are labelledwith the conventionalnames used in
semiconductor technology. The particle current densities imping-
ing on the two planes of contact are illustrated schematically
below the junctions, and it is seen that under injection conditions,
the "reverse" junction carries the greater net current, The
difference between the two net current flows is stored in the
insulator.
1042 H. J. W1NTLE
initial period during which displacement current will form
a significant fraction of the total current. There may also
be appreciable extraction of carriers from the region
adjacent to the drain electrode. Thereafter, the current
flow will be controlled by the (conventional) reverse
biased junction, leading to Levine's power law injection
and thus to the time dependence described by Fig. 2.
While it is conceptually simple, this model due to
Levine raises a good many problems of detail which must
be satisfactorily explained. It does suggest, however, that
the band-tailing and consequent localised levels which are
believed to exist in the bulk of amorphous solids [25] may
extend to the surface, leading quite naturally to the
postulated exponential energy distribution of the surface
states.
DISCUSSION
It is must be asked at this stage whether the Walden
model is really adequate to account for the absorption
current phenomena in insulators. The two main simplify-
ing assumptions which enable an analytic solution to be
obtained for the j(E,t) characteristic are that the trapping
index n and the trapping depth ~ remain constant. Each
of these assumptions is liable to be violated to some
extent in real samples [26]. It is not clear how the index n
might vary with time, so no progress has yet been made
with an analysis of this situation. On the other hand, it has
been shown that with a steadily increasing depth 6, there
is little change in the case of Schottky injection [27], even
though as time goes on the peak of the injection barrier
will almost certainly move through the position of the
previously trapped space charge, To date, therefore, the
Walden model would seem suitable for describing more
complex situations than the model strictly covers.
We now turn to the converse question of discharge
currents. Frequently, superposition is found to hold[17]
and both dipolar and tunelling[28] systems lead naturally
to this result. The case of discharge from spatially
distributed traps when the specimen is shorted has also
been studied theoretically [29], and the t-" law was found
to hold. However, the dependence on the previously
applied field was not established. In addition, this
treatment differs markedly from another more generalised
analysis[30] in the assessment of the current density
through a plane of zero field. Until these uncertainties
have been resolved, it is not possible to say whether the
absorption and resorption currents display a similar time
dependence because they arise from similar causes, or if
this apparent obeyance of the principle of superposition
arises accidentally from quite different charging and
discharging mechanisms.
In summary, we have shown that a carrier injection
mechanism which follows a power law with respect to the
field at the source electrode can account for a number of
experimental observations on polymeric insulators and
that the t " decay law follows quite readily from this
empirical law. While the true index p could vary widely,
the apparent poweer law law exponent k lies near unity as
long as most of the charge is trapped. Such values of k do
occur in typical experiments.
Acknowledgements--The author wishes to thank Dr. J. Hirsch
and Dr. D. K. Das Gupta for a number of helpful discussions,
Prof. T. J. Lewis for his hospitality while the author was on leave
at Bangor, and the National Research Council of Canada for their
financial support.
REFERENCES
1. J. J. O'Dwyer, The Theory of Electrical Conduction and
Breakdown in Solid Dielectrics. Oxford University Press,
London (1973).
2. A. Many and G. Rakavy, Phys. Rev. 126, 1980 (1962).
3. Many references are given in H. J. Wintle, J. Appl. Phys. 43,
2927 (1972).
4. A. von Hippel, E. P. Gross, J. G. Jelatis and M. Geller, Phys.
Rev. 91,568 (1953).
5. R. B. Comizzoli and F. K. Manasse, J. Appl. Phys. 39, 4868
(1968).
6. J. Mort, F. W. Schmidlin and A. I. Lakatos, J. Appl. Phys. 42,
5761 (1971).
7. H. Scher, D. Pal and J. Mort, J. Appl. Phys. 44, 2908 (1973).
8. H. Seki, Phys. Rev. B2, 4877 (1970).
9. R. H. Walden, J. Appl. Phys. 43, 1178 (1972),
10. H. J. Wintle, J, Non-Cryst. Solids 15, 471 (1974).
11. A. V. Ferris-Prabhu, Solid-State Electron. 16, 1086 (1973).
12. D. M. Taylor and T. J. Lewis, J. Phys. D. 4, 1346 (1971).
13. P. R6hl and P. Fischer, Koll. Z Z. Polymere 251,947 (1973).
14. R. J. Munick, J. Appl. Phys. 27, 1114 (1956).
15. D. K. Das Gupta, M. E. Tindell, R. D. Wingrove and K.
Joyner, Elektrostatische Aufladung, pp. 73-86. Dechema,
Frankfurt (1974).
16. D. K. Das Gupta, K. Joyner and R. S. Brockley, private
communication.
17. M. E. Baird, Revs. Mod. Phys. 40, 219 (1968).
18. J. D. Levine, Solid-State Electron. 10, 1083 (1974).
19. J. D. Levine and P. Mark, Phys. Rev. 144, 751 (1966).
20. E. H. Nicollian and A. Goetzberger, Bell Syst. Tech. J. 46,
1055 (1967).
21. J. G. Simmons, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 32, 1987 (1971).
22. N. F. Mott and R. W. Gurney, Electronic Processes in Ionic
Crystals pp. 168-172. Oxford University Press, London
(1940).
23. A. Rose, Concepts in Photoconductivity and Allied Problems
pp. 134--138. Interscience, New York (1963).
24. C. G. Garton, J. Phys. D. 7, 1814 (1974).
25. W. E. Spear, Adv. in Phys. 23, 523 (1974).
26. J. Hirsch, private communication.
27. H. J. Wintle, submitted for publication.
28. See H. J. Wintle, J. Appl. Phys. 44, 2514 (1973); and references
therein.
29. A. H. M. Shousha and L. Young, Thin Solid Films 8, 383
(1971).
30. B. Gross and M. M. Perlman, J. Appl. Phys. 43, 853 (1972).