Applied Physics Express

LETTERS Related content

- Schottky barrier height of Ni to -
Demonstration of β-(Alx Ga1−x )2O3/β-Ga2O3 (AlxGa1x)2O3 with different compositions
grown by plasma-assisted molecular beam
modulation doped field-effect transistors with Ge epitaxy
Elaheh Ahmadi, Yuichi Oshima, Feng Wu
et al.
as dopant grown via plasma-assisted molecular
- Carrier confinement observed at
beam epitaxy modulation-doped -(Al x Ga1 x )2O3/Ga2O3
heterojunction interface
Takayoshi Oshima, Yuji Kato, Naoto
Kawano et al.
To cite this article: Elaheh Ahmadi et al 2017 Appl. Phys. Express 10 071101
- Ge doping of -Ga2O3 films grown by
plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy
Elaheh Ahmadi, Onur S. Koksaldi,
Stephen W. Kaun et al.
View the article online for updates and enhancements.

Recent citations
- Adsorption and Diffusion of Aluminum on -
Ga2O3(010) Surfaces
Mengen Wang et al

- R. Singh et al

- Probing structural and chemical evolution

in (AlxGa1x)2O3 using atom probe
tomography: A review
Baishakhi Mazumder and Jith Sarker

This content was downloaded from IP address 14.139.241.219 on 26/02/2021 at 08:04

Applied Physics Express 10, 071101 (2017)
https://doi.org/10.7567/APEX.10.071101

Demonstration of β-(AlxGa1%x)2O3/β-Ga2O3 modulation doped field-effect transistors

with Ge as dopant grown via plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy
Elaheh Ahmadi1,2, Onur S. Koksaldi2, Xun Zheng2, Tom Mates1, Yuichi Oshima1, Umesh K. Mishra2, and James S. Speck1
1
Materials Department, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, U.S.A.
2
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, U.S.A.
Received June 8, 2017; accepted June 13, 2017; published online June 28, 2017

β-(AlxGa1%x)2O3/β-Ga2O3 heterostructures were grown via plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy. The β-(AlxGa1%x)2O3 barrier was partially
doped by Ge to achieve a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) in Ga2O3. The formation of the 2DEG was confirmed by capacitance–voltage
measurements. The impact of Ga-polishing on both the surface morphology and the reduction of the unintentionally incorporated Si at the growth
interface was investigated using atomic force microscopy and secondary-ion mass spectrometry. Modulation doped field-effect transistors were
fabricated. A maximum current density of 20 mA/mm with a pinch-off voltage of %6 V was achieved on a sample with a 2DEG sheet charge density
of 1.2 ' 1013 cm%2. © 2017 The Japan Society of Applied Physics

β -Ga2O3 has attracted considerable interest for high-

power electronic applications.1–4) Although the calcu-
lated electron mobility in Ga2O3 is far lower than
that in GaN (300 cm2 V−1 s−1 vs 1,200 cm2 V−1 s−1), it has a
four times larger Baliga figure of merit (3400)5) compared
with GaN because of its very large bandgap (4.8 eV).
Moreover, high-quality single-crystal β-Ga2O3 can be grown
economically using melt growth techniques such as edge-
defined film-fed growth,6) floating zone techniques,7) or the
Czochralski process.8)
Metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistors
(MOSFETs),9) Schottky diodes,10) and metal–semiconductor
field-effect transistors (MESFETs)1) on β-Ga2O3-based power
devices have been reported. Additionally, enhancement-mode
MOSFETs were recently demonstrated by several groups.11,12)
Nevertheless, β-Ga2O3=(AlxGa1−x)2O3 modulation-doped
field-effect transistors (MODFETs) have yet to be reported.
Realizing modulation doping in β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3=β-Ga2O3
heterostructures may improve the electron mobility if it is
limited by ionized impurity scattering rather than phonon
scattering.13) MODFETs offer better gate control and a smaller
pinch-off voltage than MOSFETS and MESFETS. Further-
more, the larger bandgap of β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 compared with
β-Ga2O3 makes β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3=β-Ga2O3 heterostructures
promising candidates for improving the breakdown voltage.
Oshima et al.14) recently demonstrated the carrier confine-
ment in β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3=β-Ga2O3(100) heterostructures. They
grew the β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3 layer directly on the β-Ga2O3(100)
substrate and used the accumulated Si at the growth interface
as a dopant in the (AlxGa1−x)2O3 layer. The problems with this
approach are that there is no control of either the concentration
or the doping profile and it cannot be utilized to design more
complex structures.
We recently demonstrated the successful growth of β-
(AlxGa1−x)2O3=β-Ga2O3 heterostructures with β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3
films having an Al content up to 18%.15,16) We also studied
Schottky diodes fabricated on these structures using Ni as the
Schottky contact metal and measured the barrier height and the
dependence of the ideality factor on the temperature and Al
content.17)
We successfully achieved a wide range of electron
concentrations in β-Ga2O3 films using Sn18) as the dopant.
However, our attempt to achieve modulation doping in
β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3=β-Ga2O3 heterostructures using Sn as the
intentional donor was not successful. This could be because
071101-1
of the large size of the Sn atom compared with the Al atom,
which made the substitution of Sn atoms at the correct lattice
sites less probable. A full understanding of the reason for this
unsuccessful effort needs further investigation and is beyond
the scope of this work.
Recently, we investigated Ge as an alternative n-type
dopant and obtained a controllable electron concentration
over a wide range (1 × 1017–1 × 1020 cm−3).18) We also
achieved a mobility of 97 cm2 V−1 s−1 for a charge density of
1.6 × 1018 cm−3 by using Ge as dopant.18)
In this study, for the first time, we demonstrate modulation
doping in β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3=β-Ga2O3 heterostructures grown
via plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy (PAMBE) using
Ge as the intentional donor in the (AlxGa1−x)2O3 heterobarrier
and fabricate MODFETs for the first time. We also demon-
strate that Ga-polishing prior to growth is effective for
reducing the unintentional incorporation of Si at the growth
interface and achieving a smoother surface.
A Varian 620 MBE system equipped with conventional Ga
and Al thermal effusion cells and a Veeco Uni-bulb oxygen
radiofrequency (RF)-plasma source was used for all the
growths. All the samples reported in this work were grown
on insulating Fe-doped β-Ga2O3(010) substrates with a
miscut less than 0.2°. A 4-h bake at 200 °C was performed
in the load-lock chamber before the samples were transferred
to the main chamber. The surface morphology was studied
using atomic force microscopy (AFM). All the samples were
characterized via high-resolution X-ray diffraction using
Cu Kα1 radiation. The composition of (AlxGa1−x)2O3 was
determined via ω–2θ peak separation, using the method
explained in Ref. 16. Secondary-ion mass spectrometry
(SIMS) was performed to measure the concentration of Ge
incorporated in the (AlxGa1−x)2O3 layer and the unintention-
ally incorporated Si at the growth interface.
Three samples — A1, A2, and B — with the epi-stack
shown in Fig. 1 were grown on Fe-doped β-Ga2O3(010)
substrates. SIMS measurements on our previously grown
samples revealed Si accumulation at the growth interface.
The accumulated Si on the Ga2O3 substrate is incorporated
into the film during the initial stage of the growth and forms
a parallel parasitic channel that is detrimental to the elec-
trical characterization and device performance. This issue
was discussed by Wong et al.19) In GaN-based HEMTs,
the growth typically starts with a thick layer of Fe, C, or
Mg-doped GaN to compensate the unintentional donors
© 2017 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Appl. Phys. Express 10, 071101 (2017)
Fig. 1. Schematic of the β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3–Ga2O3 heterostructure, showing
the epi-stack grown via PAMBE, along with the fabricated transistor. On the
samples A1 and A2, x1 and x2 are 16 nm and 27 nm thick. While on sample
B, x1 and x2 are 7 and 36 nm thick, respectively. The space between the
source and drain (LSD) is 10 µm.
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. 5 × 5-µm2 AFM images of samples (a) A1, (b) A2, and (c) B, showing rms surface-roughness values of 0.40, 5.10, and 0.37 nm, respectively.
(primarily Si and O) at the interface and form a semi-
insulating (SI) buffer layer.18) However, in this work, we
employed an alternative method. The effect of Ga-polishing
on cleaning the growth surface was investigated. For this
purpose, we exposed the substrate to a Ga beam equivalent
pressure (BEP) of 1.1 × 107 Torr for 30 min at a substrate
temperature of 800 °C prior to the growth.
To study the effect of Ga-polishing on the surface
morphology and the unintentional incorporated Si at the
growth interface, identical structures were grown on the two
samples A1 and A2. Samples A1 and B were subject to a
Ga-polishing step prior to growth, whereas for A2, this step
was skipped. For sample A2, the growth was initiated by an
activated oxygen flux treatment to polish the surface as
explained in our previous work.18) For samples A1 and B,
the O2-polishing was performed after the Ga-polishing step.
After the pre-treatments, the substrate temperature was
decreased to 600 °C for all three samples, and a 300-nm-
thick Ga2O3 film was grown in the slightly Ga-rich growth
regime (as explained elsewhere17)) using an oxygen foreline
pressure of 60 Torr and an RF plasma power of 200 W. This
was followed by the deposition of a 7-nm-thick undoped
(AlxGa1−x)2O3 film on all the samples using an Al BEP of
7 × 10−9 Torr. As previously mentioned, samples A1 and A2
had identical epi-structures, with a 16-nm-thick Ge-doped
(AlxGa1−x)2O3 layer (x1) and a 27-nm-thick unintentionally
doped (UID) (AlxGa1−x)2O3 cap layer (x2). For sample B,
x1 = 7 nm, and x2 = 36 nm. The Ge concentration was chosen
to be 1 × 1019 cm−3 for all three samples. The total thickness
of the (AlxGa1−x)2O3 layer was 50 nm for all three samples.
Notably, although the optimized growth temperature for
(AlxGa1−x)2O3 was between 650 and 700 °C,15) a lower
071101-2
E. Ahmadi et al.
Fig. 2. XRD 2θ–ω profile along the 020 direction showing a similar Al2O3
mole fraction of ∼8% for all three samples.
(c)
growth temperature (600 °C) was used in this work to
facilitate the Ge incorporation into the film.
Next, circular capacitors 50 µm in diameter and transistor
patterns were fabricated on the samples. Inductively coupled
plasma etching was performed for 1 h using BCl3 to achieve
mesa isolation.20) Ti=Au (20=100 nm) ohmic contacts were
deposited via e-beam evaporation and annealed at 500 °C
in N2 for 1 min. Then, 5 nm of Al2O3 was deposited using
atomic layer deposition as the gate dielectric, followed by the
deposition of 30=500-nm-thick Ti=Au via e-beam evapora-
tion for the gate metal.
The Al content in the (AlxGa1−x)2O3 barrier for all three
samples was measured to be ∼8% using the XRD ω–2θ
triple-axis profile along the 020 direction, as shown in Fig. 2.
The AFM image of the samples shown in Fig. 3 reveals
that for samples A1 and B, where the growth was initiated
by Ga-polishing, the surface was smooth, with root-mean-
square (rms) surface-roughness values of 0.4 and 0.37 nm,
respectively. In contrast, for sample B, the Ga-polishing was
skipped, and the surface appeared very rough (rms roughness
of >5 nm), with large surface defects. Furthermore, the SIMS
profiles for these samples (Fig. 4) show that the Ga-polishing
was very effective, reducing the unintentionally incorporated
Si and Ge at the growth interface by a factor of 5. We predict
that it is possible to entirely eliminate these impurities at
the interface by optimizing the Ga-pretreatment conditions.
According to our previous work (unpublished), we believe
that the exposure of the β-Ga2O3 substrate to Ga flux in the
absence of activated O results in the etching of the film,
reducing the accumulated Si at the growth interface. The
exact etch rate for this specific conditions is currently under
investigation and will be reported in a separate paper.
© 2017 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Appl. Phys. Express 10, 071101 (2017)
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4. SIMS profiles showing the (a) Ge concentration and (b) Si
concentration in samples A2 and B. The Ga-polishing prior to growth
reduced the unintentionally incorporated impurity at the interface.
Figure 5 compares the capacitance–voltage (C–V ) profiles
for all three samples. Sheet charge densities of 1.2 × 1013,
2 × 1013, and 4 × 1012 cm−2 were measured for samples A1,
(a) Sample A1
Fig. 6. DC output (ID vs VDS) and transfer (ID and gm vs VGS) characteristics of samples (a) A1, (b) A2, and (c) B.
071101-3
E. Ahmadi et al.
Fig. 5. C–V profiles of samples measured at a frequency of 100 kHz,
showing the signature of modulation doping. Charge densities of 1.2 × 1013,
2 × 1013, and 4 × 1012 cm−2 were extracted from the C–V profiles for samples
A1, A2, and B, respectively.
A2, and B, respectively. We believe that the large difference
in the charge densities measured for samples A1 and A2,
despite their identical structures, was due to the large Si con-
centration at the growth interface in sample A2. Si is a
shallow donor in β-Ga2O3, and its unintentional incorporation
in the buffer layer leads to a smaller distance between the
conduction band and the Fermi level (EC –EF), which results
in a larger sheet charge density in the channel.
Figure 6 shows the current–voltage (I–V ) characterization
of three samples on transistors with a source–drain distance
of LSD = 10 µm, a gate length of LG = 0.75 µm, and a source–
gate distance of LSG = 1 µm. The drain current (ID) and
transconductance (Gm) for each sample are shown as a
function of the gate voltage (VG). The drain current is also
(b) Sample A2 (c) Sample B
© 2017 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Appl. Phys. Express 10, 071101 (2017)
Table I. Summary of epi-structures and transistor characteristics of
samples A1, A2, and B.
Barrier structure VP ID,max Gm,max
Sample Ga-polishing
(nm) (V) (mA=mm) (mS=mm)
A1 x1 = 16, x2 = 27 Yes −6 20
A2 x1 = 16, x2 = 27 No −10 10
B x1 = 7, x2 = 36 Yes −2.5 1.4
plotted as a function of the drain voltage (VD) on a linear
scale for all three samples. A maximum ID and Gm of 20
mA=mm and 5 mS=mm, respectively, were measured for
sample A1. The transistor characteristics were limited by the
ohmic contacts, which were by no means optimized in these
devices. Thus, the extraction of the sheet resistance and the
electron mobility from the transmission line method (TLM)
measurement was not possible. We are currently improving
our ohmic-contact process to achieve far higher output
currents. This is part of our ongoing studies.
A very low gate leakage due to the insulated gate approach
allowed us to measure the current at the forward gate
voltages. An ION=IOFF ratio of >9 orders of magnitude
was measured on all the samples. Pinch-off voltages of −6,
−10, and −2.5 V were measured on samples A1, A2, and B,
respectively. The larger pinch-off voltage for sample A2
compared with sample A1 was most probably due to the
larger Si concentration at the growth interface on this sample.
A summary of the epi-structures and transistor character-
izations are reported in Table I for all three samples.
In summary, modulation doping field-effect transistors
were fabricated on β-(AlxGa1−x)2O3=β-Ga2O3(010) hetero-
structures grown via PAMBE using Ge as an n-type dopant.
A maximum current of 20 mA=mm was achieved with a
pinch-off voltage of −6 V. Ga-polishing was demonstrated
to be an effective approach for reducing the Si incorporation
at the growth interface by at least a factor of 5.
Acknowledgments The authors thank Dr. Gregg Jessen for providing the
β-Ga2O3 substrates. This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific
Research (AFOSR, Program Manager Dr Ali Sayir) through grant number
FA9550-14-1-0112. This study made use of the central facilities supported by the
NSF MRSEC Program, which is a member of the NSF-funded Materials Research
E. Ahmadi et al.
Facilities Network, under Award No. DMR 1121053. A portion of this work was
performed in the UCSB Nanofabrication Facility, which is part of the NSF-funded
National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network.
4
1) M. Higashiwaki, K. Sasaki, A. Kuramata, T. Masui, and S. Yamakoshi,
1 Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 013504 (2012).
0.7 2) M. Higashiwaki, K. Konishi, K. Sasaki, K. Goto, K. Nomura, Q. T. Thieu,
R. Togashi, H. Murakami, Y. Kumagai, B. Monemar, A. Koukitu, A.
Kuramata, and S. Yamakoshi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 108, 133503 (2016).
3) M. Higashiwaki, K. Sasaki, T. Kamimura, M. H. Wong, D. Krishnamurthy,
A. Kuramata, T. Masui, and S. Yamakoshi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 123511
(2013).
4) M. Mohamed, K. Irmscher, C. Janowitz, Z. Galazka, R. Manzke, and R.
Fornari, Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 132106 (2012).
5) M. Higashiwaki, K. Sasaki, H. Murakami, Y. Kumagai, A. Koukitu, A.
Kuramata, T. Masui, and S. Yamakoshi, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 31,
034001 (2016).
6) H. Aida, K. Nishiguchi, H. Takeda, N. Aota, K. Sunakawa, and Y. Yaguchi,
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 47, 8506 (2008).
7) N. Ueda, H. Hosono, R. Waseda, and H. Kawazoe, Appl. Phys. Lett. 70,
3561 (1997).
8) Y. Tomm, P. Reiche, D. Klimm, and T. Fukuda, J. Cryst. Growth 220, 510
(2000).
9) M. H. Wong, K. Sasaki, A. Kuramata, S. Yamakoshi, and M. Higashiwaki,
IEEE Electron Device Lett. 37, 212 (2016).
10) M. Higashiwaki, K. Sasaki, K. Goto, K. Nomura, Q. T. Thieu, R. Togashi,
H. Murakami, Y. Kumagai, B. Monemar, A. Koukitu, A. Kuramata, and S.
Yamakoshi, IEEE 73rd Annu. Device Research Conf., 2015, p. 29.
11) K. D. Chabak, N. Moser, A. J. Green, D. E. Walker, S. E. Tetlak, E. Heller,
A. Crespo, R. Fitch, J. P. McCandless, K. Leedy, M. Baldini, G. Wagner,
Z. Galazka, X. Li, and G. Jessen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 213501 (2016).
12) M. H. Wong, Y. Nakata, A. Kuramata, S. Yamakoshi, and M. Higashiwaki,
Appl. Phys. Express 10, 041101 (2017).
13) R. Dingle, H. L. Störmer, A. C. Gossard, and W. Wiegmann, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 33, 665 (1978).
14) T. Oshima, Y. Kato, N. Kawano, A. Kuramata, S. Yamakoshi, S. Fujita, T.
Oishi, and M. Kasu, Appl. Phys. Express 10, 035701 (2017).
15) S. W. Kaun, F. Wu, and J. S. Speck, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 33, 041508
(2015).
16) Y. Oshima, E. Ahmadi, S. C. Badescu, F. Wu, and J. S. Speck, Appl. Phys.
Express 9, 061102 (2016).
17) E. Ahmadi, Y. Oshima, F. Wu, and J. S. Speck, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 32,
035004 (2017).
18) E. Ahmadi, O. S. Koksaldi, S. W. Kaun, Y. Oshima, D. B. Short, U. K.
Mishra, and J. S. Speck, Appl. Phys. Express 10, 041102 (2017).
19) M. H. Wong, K. Sasaki, A. Kuramata, S. Yamakoshi, and M. Higashiwaki,
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 55, 1202B9 (2016).
20) J. E. Hogan, S. W. Kaun, E. Ahmadi, Y. Oshima, and J. S. Speck,
Semicond. Sci. Technol. 31, 065006 (2016).
071101-4 © 2017 The Japan Society of Applied Physics