Research Article  Open Access
The Effect of Electron versus Hole Photocurrent on Optoelectric Properties of WzGaN ReachThrough Avalanche Photodiodes
Abstract
The authors have made an attempt to investigate the effect of electron versus hole photocurrent on the optoelectric properties of structured WurtziteGaN (WzGaN) reachthrough avalanche photodiodes (RAPDs). The photo responsivity and optical gain of the devices are obtained within the wavelength range of 300 to 450 nm using a novel modeling and simulation technique developed by the authors. Two optical illumination configurations of the device such as Top Mounted (TM) and Flip Chip (FC) are considered for the present study to investigate the optoelectric performance of the device separately due to electron dominated and hole dominated photocurrents, respectively, in the visibleblind ultraviolet (UV) spectrum. The results show that the peak unity gain responsivity and corresponding optical gain of the device are 555.78 mA W^{−1} and , respectively, due to hole dominated photocurrent (i.e., in FC structure); while those are 480.56 mA W^{−1} and , respectively, due to electron dominated photocurrent (i.e., in TM structure) at the wavelength of 365 nm and for applied reverse bias of 85 V. Thus, better optoelectric performance of WzGaN RAPDs can be achieved when the photocurrent is made hole dominated by allowing the UV light to be shined on the layer instead of layer of the device.
1. Introduction
Ultraviolet detectors are of a great interest to a wide range of industrial, defense, scientific, commercial, environmental, and even biological applications. Most of these applications inherently require high sensitivity, low noise, and visibleblind detection. Photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) may be used as UV detectors due to their large internal gain (~10^{6}) which ensures high detectivity in UV range. However, the drawbacks of PMTs are as follows: they are bulky, and they require large bias voltage (~1000 V) for operation [1]. Thus, the semiconductorbased alternatives such as avalanche photodiodes (APDs) are preferred over PMTs due to their small size, high gain and also they require much lower voltage for biasing. APDs working in ultraviolet (UV) range are in immense interest of researchers nowadays for numerous applications, including bioaerosol detection, UV imaging, harsh environment gamma sensing [2] and longrange flame detection in the solarblind window. Conventional Si APDs generally have limited deepUV quantum efficiency and appreciable visible response [3, 4]. Thus, additional filtering is essential for them to operate in deepUV range. Further, very low quantum efficiency of Si APDs at these range make them inefficient. APDs based on wide bandgap semiconductors such as GaN [5] and SiC [6] offer natural visible blindness, harsh environment capability and low noise performance. However, SiCbased APDs require additional filtering to operate in the deepUV range which further limits their sensitivity and applicability. GaNbased APDs are the most promising semiconductorbased photodetectors to operate in deepUV range which offer the potential selffiltering solar blindness with sharp responsivity cutoff [7]. GaN (bandgap eV) grown on sapphire substrate has shown high performance visibleblind UV detection [8]. Since early 2000, several researchers have fabricated and characterized the GaN or GaN/AlGaNbased APDs (homojunction or heterojunction) and explored the potentiality of GaN as base material of APDs for deepUV sensing [9–19].
But so far, as authors’ knowledge is concerned, no experimental or theoretical verification is available in the published literatures till the date investigating the effect of electron dominated and hole dominated photocurrents separately on the optoelectric performance of GaN APDs in UV range. In the present paper, the authors have carried out simulation experiment on structured WzGaN reachthrough avalanche photodiodes (RAPDs) for two types of device orientations used to illuminate the UV light on the device to investigate the photosensitivity and optical gain of the device by using a novel modeling and simulation technique developed by the authors [20, 21]. Bandtoband tunneling and trapassisted tunneling mechanisms are incorporated into the simulation method used in the present study; those were not considered in the previous papers by the authors [20, 21]. Simulation is carried out to investigate the electric and optoelectric performance of UV RAPDs based on WzGaN for the following two illumination configurations: (a) light is incident on back layer of the structured device (i.e., TM structure) and (b) light is incident on top layer of the device (i.e., FC structure). In the first configuration, (a) the electron component of photocurrent dominates over the hole component of the same, while in the second one, (b) the hole component of photocurrent dominates over the electron component. The optoelectronic properties of WzGaN RAPDs under both types of optical illumination configurations have been compared in this paper, and the superior configuration is suggested.
2. Material Parameters
The optical gain and responsivity of WzGaN RAPDs are sensitive functions of electric field . The electric field variation of carrier ionization rates in WzGaN is given by where the value of the constant . The values of the ionization coefficients and for a wide field range in WzGaN are taken from experimental data of Kunihiro et al. [22]. The negative differential mobility in the electron drift velocity versus electric field characteristics (i.e., versus ) of group IIIIV semiconductors [23, 24] has been taken into account in the computer simulation through the expression which incorporates a peak in the drift velocity at low field () followed by a velocity saturation at high electric field. The hole drift velocity versus field characteristics (i.e., versus ) of WzGaN is given by
All other material parameters such as bandgap , intrinsic carrier concentration , effective density of states of conduction and valance bands , diffusion coefficients , mobilities , and diffusion lengths of charge carriers and permittivity of WzGaN are taken from recently published reports [25]. Necessary optical parameters of WzGaN such as absorption coefficient and reflectance for the wavelength range of 300–450 nm at room temperature (i.e., K) are taken from experimental report [26, 27].
3. Device Structure
A crosssectional view of WzGaN structured RADP is shown in Figures 1(a) and 1(b), respectively, for two different optical illumination configurations as mentioned earlier. In the first case (Figure 1(a)), light is incident on the top layer so that the photocurrent due to electrons dominate over that of holes (i.e., TM structure), and in the second case (Figure 1(b)), light is incident on the back layer so that photocurrent due to holes dominates over that of electrons (i.e., FC structure). The doping levels of the  and layers are designed such that both the layers are totally depleted and lead to reachthrough structures. Total depletion of  and layers causes significant improvement in the impulse response of RAPDS due to negligible diffusion photocurrent [28] in the active layer of the device. Also, the reachthrough structure improves the responsivity of the device and ensures carrier multiplication without excess noise for a specific thickness of multiplication region within the device [28]. Four different WzGaN RAPDs are designed with different doping levels of  and active layers to study the effect of the level of doping on the optoelectric characteristics of the device. The thicknesses of different active layers such as epitaxial  and layers ( and ) and corresponding doping concentrations ( and ) are given in Table 1. The thicknesses of substrate layer and layer ( and ) are taken as 500 nm and 150 nm, respectively, in top illuminated TM structure, and those are taken as 200 nm, and 150 nm in back illuminated FC structure. The doping concentrations of substrate layer and layer ( and ) are taken as 5.0 × 10^{24} m^{−3} which has been achieved in WzGaN [29]. The device junction area is taken as m × 200 m and the illumination area of the device is taken as m × 60 m.

(a)
(b)
4. Simulation Technique
In this section, the simulation technique used to investigate the electrical and optoelectrical characteristics of structured RAPDs is discussed in detail. Using this technique, the simulation can be carried out for two different optical illumination configurations, that is, TM and FC structures as mentioned earlier to investigate the electric and optoelectric characteristics of the device. Onedimensional model of reverse biased structure shown in Figure 2 is taken for the simulation of the RAPDs under consideration. The physical phenomena take place in the semiconductor bulk along the symmetry axis of RAPD. Thus, the onedimensional model of RAPDs considered in this work is justified. The static electric field and normalized current density profiles in the depletion layer of the device are obtained from simultaneous numerical solution of fundamental device equations, that is, Poisson’s equation (4), carrier continuity equations in the steady state (5), current density equations (6), and mobile space charge equation (7) subject to appropriate boundary conditions as discussed in the earlier paper by the authors [20, 21]. A doubleiterative simulation method is developed by the authors to solve these abovementioned equations to obtain the DC electric field and normalized current density profiles [20, 21]. The basic device equations are given by where and are the donor and acceptor concentrations in  and layers, respectively, and are, respectively, the electron and hole concentrations at the space point , and are, respectively, the electric field and potential at , and are, respectively the electron and hole components of total current density , is the electric charge of an electron (1.6 × 10^{−19} C), and are the electron and hole diffusion coefficients, and is the permittivity of the semiconductor material.
(a)
(b)
The is the avalanche generation rate given by where and are the ionization rates, and are the drift velocities of electrons and holes at the space point within the depletion layer of the device. Recombination effects are not included in the analysis since the transit time of carriers in the depletion layer of an APD is several orders of magnitude shorter than the recombination time. The bandtoband tunneling generation rate for electrons obtained from quantum mechanical considerations [30–32] is given by where the coefficients and are given by where is the density of state elective mass of charge carriers, is the bandgap of the semiconductor, , and J s is the Planck’s constant. The bandtoband tunneling generation rate for holes can be obtained from Figure 3. The phenomenon of bandtoband tunneling is instantaneous, and the bandtoband tunnel generation rate for holes at is equal to that for electrons at that is, . The bandtoband tunnel generation of an electron at is simultaneously associated with the generation of a hole at , where is the spatial separation between the edge of conduction band and valence band at the same energy. If is the measure of energy from the bottom of the conduction band on the side and the vertical difference between and is , can be easily obtained from Figure 3 as [33, 34] The hole generation rate due to bandtoband tunneling is zero in the region defined by (Figure 3) as electrons in the valance band find no available states in the conduction band for bandtoband tunneling. Similarly, nonavailability of states in the conduction band for tunneling to take place in the region (Figure 3) makes no contribution of bandtoband tunnel generated electrons in this region.
The bandtoband tunneling component of current density can be calculated as The trapassisted tunneling generation rate at the space point within the depletion layer is given by where is the trapassisted tunneling component of current density at the space point calculated on the basis of simple onedimensional model [35] that can be written as where is the energy (eV) corresponding to the trap centers measured from top of the valance band, is the effective mass of electrons, is the density of traps occupied by electrons, and is the matrix element associated with the trap potential [35]. Thus, the total current density in unilluminated APD can be written as where is the avalanche component of the current density given by Proper boundary conditions of electric field and normalized current density for the simultaneous numerical solution of (4) to (7) are essential. The boundary conditions for the electric field at the depletion layer edges (Figure 2) are given bySimilarly, the boundary conditions for normalized current density, at the depletion layer edges (Figure 2) are given bywhere and are the position dependent electron and hole multiplication factors [20, 36]. Assuming that the carrier multiplication occurs only within the avalanche region, it can be concluded that the electron multiplication factor at the edge of the depletion layer at side is the same as the electron multiplication factor at the edge of the avalanche zone at side, that is, Similarly, the hole multiplication factor at the edge of the depletion layer at side is the same as hole multiplication factor at the edge of the avalanche zone in side, that is, The electron and hole multiplication factors of unilluminated APD at the  and depletion layer edges are given by where is the total thermally generated reverse saturation current . The expression for thermally generated electron and hole reverse saturation currents are given by
If watts of optical power is incident on the device having effective device illumination area of , then the photon flux density is given by The electronhole pair (EHP) generation rate at the space point of the depletion region due to optical illumination is given by where and are the absorption coefficient and reflectance (; = refractive index of the semiconductor; = refractive index of air) of the semiconductor material, respectively, at a wavelength of . The drift component of the photocurrent density ( and ) through the reversebiased depletion layer is given by Due to very high conductivity, electric fields at the  and layers are zero. Diffusion components of the photocurrent are generated within these undepleted  and layers. Diffusion components of the photocurrent in both  and layers separately can be determined by solving the onedimensional diffusion equation with proper boundary conditions [37]. The electron and hole diffusion components of the photocurrent density ( and ) in both  and layers are given by Total photocurrent density is the combination of drift and diffusion components, that is,
When the light is shined on the side of the structured RAPD, then the photocurrent density will be hole dominated. For this case, the electron and hole multiplication factors at the  and depletion layer edges are given by In this case, the value of is considerably reduced, while remains unchanged. Thus, the normalized current density boundary conditions at the depletion layer edges (18a) are modified to where is very large (~10^{6}) near the breakdown of the device and is much smaller than under similar condition. Equation (29) is used as one of the boundary conditions in the proposed model (in place of (18a)) for simulating the optoelectric properties of the layer illuminated structured RAPD.
When the light is shined on the side of the structured RAPD, then the photocurrent density will be electron dominated. So, the electron and hole multiplication factors at the  and depletion layer edges are given by In this case, the value of is considerably reduced, while remains unchanged. Thus, the normalized current density boundary conditions at the depletion layer edges (18b) are modified to where is very large (~10^{6}) near the breakdown of the device and is much smaller than under similar condition. Equation (31) is used as one of the boundary conditions in the proposed model (in place of (18b)) for simulating the optoelectric properties of the layer illuminated structured RAPD. Total primary unmultiplied photocurrent can be written as Total multiplied photocurrent is given by In the avalanche phenomenon of reverse biased structured RAPDs, both electrons and holes participate; a mean value of multiplication factor or optical gain can be expressed as where and are the overall multiplication factors which are obtained by integrating the position dependent multiplication factor ( and ) over the entire depletion layer width. The responsivity ( or ) of an APD is defined as the output photocurrent per unit incident optical power which can be written as where is the unity gain responsivity of the device.
5. Results and Discussion
Simulation is carried out to study the electrical and optoelectrical characteristics of the designed structured WzGaN RAPDs (Table 1). The effect of optical illumination on the electric field profile of the device is investigated for two different optical illumination configurations. Simulated electric field profiles are shown in Figure 4 near breakdown voltages. Breakdown voltages of RAPD1, RAPD2, RAPD3, and RAPD4 are calculated by integrating the electric field profiles within the entire depletion regions of the corresponding devices (i.e., , where ). Breakdown voltages of RAPD1, RAPD2, RAPD3, and RAPD4 are obtained as 85.54, 89.25, 91.46, and 94.47 V, respectively. Breakdown voltage increases as the doping levels of the active layers decrease. Spatial variations of impact ionization rates for electrons and holes in structured WzGaN RAPDs are shown in Figure 5. It is interesting to observe that the ionization rates for holes are higher compared to the ionization rate of electrons at each space points within the active region of the device. Also, both and are higher at each space points within its low field regions in RAPDs with lower doping levels because at low field regions, electric fields at each space point, higher for lower doping level RAPDs. But the peak electric field at the metallurgical junction increases with the increase of doping concentration (Figure 4), and thus, at the junction both, and are higher in RAPDs having higher doping levels (Figure 5).
Multiplication factors of the RAPDs under consideration are plotted against reverse bias voltage for both types of optical illumination configurations (i.e., FC and TM) for 365 nm wavelength in Figures 6 and 7. It is observed that peak multiplication factor is higher for hole dominated photocurrent (highest 9.4144 × 10^{3}), that is, when the UV light is shined on the layer of the device (FC structure) as compared to that of the electron dominated photocurrent (highest 7.8800 × 10^{3}), that is, when the UV light is shined on the layer of the device (TM structure). It is occurred because the ionization rate of holes is higher than that of electrons in WzGaN [22]; thus, the hole dominated photocurrent must have greater value in FC structure as compared to electron dominated photocurrent in TM structure, since greater impact ionization occurs in FC structure. That is why WzGaNbased APDs are more sensitive to hole dominated photocurrent causing greater multiplication gain in FC structure as compared to TM structure. This effect is similar as InP and GaAsbased avalanche transit time (ATT) devices [38–40] where , but opposite of Sibased ATT devices [40–48] where . Also, multiplication factor is higher for lower doping level RAPDs due to their expected wider avalanche zones or multiplication regions.
Figure 8 shows the variations of electron dominated photocurrent (: TM structure), hole dominated photocurrent (: FC structure), and total dark current (: without illumination) with reverse bias voltage in RAPD4. The simulated photocurrents that are shown in Figure 8 are for optical illumination of wavelength nm. Also, the dark current components due to bandtoband tunneling and trapassisted tunneling (: for three different trap centers , 0.40, and 0.60 eV) are also shown in Figure 8. It can be observed that both and are increasing with the increase of reverse bias , that is, with the increase of electric field across the depletion region. It is also noteworthy that the magnitudes of and are much lower as compared to the total current through the device under unilluminated condition the breakdown. Thus, the avalanche multiplication phenomenon is clearly dominant over the both types of tunneling phenomena (bandtoband and trapassisted). It can be observed from Figure 8 that at low reverse bias when the amount of impact ionization is low (causing very low multiplication gain ) in both the electron and hole dominated photocurrents which are much higher (~10^{−9} to ~10^{−8} A for to 40 V) as compared to the dark current (10^{−13} to 10^{−11} A for to 40 V). But the dark current grows with much faster rate as compared to the photocurrents as the reverse bias increases further and near the breakdown (when the multiplication gain is very high (~10^{4})) dark current and photocurrents are almost comparable. Thus, the APDs must be biased well below the breakdown voltage so that amount of dark current remains much smaller as compared to the photocurrent component. But the reverse bias should not be very low (<40 V) because, at very low reverse bias, multiplication gain is very low which is not sufficient to detect very weak optical signals. In the case of RAPDs under consideration, applied reverse bias must be 40 to 85 V. It is also noteworthy from Figure 8 that the hole dominated photocurrent is higher as compared to electron dominated photocurrent ; which reconfirms the greater sensitivity of WzGaN RADPs in hole dominated photocurrent.
Unity gain responsivity curves of structured WzGaN RAPDs are shown in Figures 9 and 10 for both type of optical illumination configurations (FC and TM). Unity gain responsivities are calculated for the wavelength 300–450 nm, and it is observed that the peak responsivity is obtained at 365 nm for both FC and TM structures. Again, peak responsivities are higher (555.78 mA W^{−1} at 365 nm) for hole dominated photocurrent, that is, in FC structure as compared to electron dominated photocurrent (480.56 mA W^{−1} at 365 nm), that is, in TM structure. It is also interesting to observe that due to wider avalanche widths (i.e., higher impact ionization), lower doping level RAPDs provide higher responsivity due to same amount of incident optical power at same reverse bias. It can be noticed from Figures 9 and 10 that in both the optical illumination configurations (FC and TM) the device shows responsivity peaks at 365 nm wavelength which is also observed in the earlier experimental report on GaN APDs [19].
Spectral response of RAPD4 is shown in Figure 11 as a function of reverse bias voltage under both optical illumination configurations. It can be observed from Figure 11 that in both FC and TM structures the peak unity gain responsivity (at 365 nm) increases as the reverse bias voltage increases. Peak unity gain responsivity increases from 269.92 to 555.78 mA W^{−1} as the reverse bias voltage increases from 45 to 85 V in FC structure, whereas the same increases from 229.87 to 480.56 mA W^{−1} for the same increment of reverse bias. Also, it is noteworthy that the unity gain responsivity at each wavelength is higher in FC structure (i.e., for hole dominated photocurrent) as compared to that in TM structure (i.e., for electron dominated photocurrent) for a particular reverse bias voltage.
6. Validation of the Simulation Results
Vashaei et al. [19] fabricated GaN avalanche photodiodes grown on plane freestanding GaN substrate and experimentally studied spectral response of the device. The photocurrent was extracted by measuring the  characteristics under white light illumination using a Xenon lamp coupled onto the top of the device (layer) through an UV fiberoptic cable. The spectral response of the devices was measured within the wavelength range of 300 to 450 nm. They obtained peak unity gain responsivity of the device more than 523.0 mA W^{−1} at 364 nm with multiplication factor of about 8,000 at an applied reverse bias of 75 V. The simulation results presented in this paper show that 555.78 mA W^{−1} of peak unity gain responsivity at 365 nm wavelength may be achieved with a multiplication factor of 9.4144 × 10^{3} in structured WzGaN RAPD when the UV light is illuminated on the layer of the device (i.e., FC structure) in which the photocurrent is hole dominated, whereas those are 480.56 mA W^{−1} and 7.8800 × 10^{3}, respectively, when UV light of same wavelength is illuminated on the layer of the device, that is, due to electron dominated photocurrent (i.e., in TM structure) (applied reverse bias V for both of these FC and TM structures). Thus, the simulation results are in close agreement with the experimentally obtained results of Vashaei et al. [19]. Slight deviation in the simulation results from the experimental results may be due to the difference in structure of the devices and different electrical bias conditions.
7. Conclusions
The effect of electron versus hole photocurrent on the optoelectric properties of structured WzGaN RAPDs is investigated in this paper within visibleblind UV range (300–450 nm). Results show that peak unity gain responsivity of 555.78 mA W^{−1} at 365 nm can be achieved with a multiplication factor of 9.4144 × 10^{3} when light is illuminated on the layer of the device, that is, when the photocurrent is hole dominated (FC structure), while those are 480.56 mA W^{−1} and 7.8800 × 10^{3}, respectively, when light of same wavelength is illuminated on the layer of the device, that is, due to electron dominated photocurrent (i.e., in TM structure) (applied reverse bias V for both of these FC and TM structures). Due to higher hole ionization rate compared to electron ionization rate in WzGaN, the structured WzGaN RAPDs are more sensitive to hole dominated photocurrent as compared to electron dominated photocurrent. So, it can be concluded that UV light has to be illuminated on layer of the device instead of layer to get better optoelectrical performance of WzGaN RAPDs. Results are extremely encouraging to fabricate structured WzGaN RAPDs for high performance visibleblind UV applications such as bioaerosol detection, UV imaging, harsh environment gamma sensing, longrange flame detection in the solarblind window.
References
 G. Pietri, “Progress in photomultiplier tubes for scintillation counting and nuclear physics,” IRE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 62–72, 1962. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. A. Shaw, A. M. Siegel, J. Model et al., “Deep UV photoncounting detectors and applications,” in Advanced Photon Counting Techniques III, vol. 7320 of Proceedings of SPIE, pp. 1–15, April 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 I. Wȩgrzecka, M. Wȩgrzecki, M. Grynglas et al., “Design and properties of silicon avalanche photodiodes,” OptoElectronics Review, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 95–104, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
 T. Kaneda, “Chapter 3 silicon and germanium avalanche photodiodes,” Semiconductors and Semimetals, vol. 22, pp. 247–328, 1985. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. D. Dupuis, J. H. Ryou, D. Yoo et al., “Highperformance GaN and Al_{x}Ga_{1x}N ultraviolet avalanche photodiodes grown by MOCVD on bulk IIIN substrates,” in ElectroOptical Remote Sensing, Detection, and Photonic Technologies and Their Applications, vol. 6739 of Proceedings of SPIE, September 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. Bai, H. D. Liu, D. C. Mcintosh, and J. C. Campbell, “Highdetectivity and highsinglephotondetectionefficiency 4HSiC avalanche photodiodes,” IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 300–303, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. J. Tarsa, P. Kozodoy, J. Ibbetson, B. P. Keller, G. Parish, and U. Mishra, “Solarblind AlGaNbased inverted heterostructure photodiodes,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 316–318, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
 C. Bayaram, J. L. Pau, R. McClintock, and M. Razeghi, “Performance enhancement of GaN ultraviolet avalanche photodiodes with ptype δdoping,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 92, no. 24, Article ID 241103, 3 pages, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. Schreiber et al., “A perspective of GaN/AlGaN detector development for UV missile warning applications,” Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Wide Bandgap IIINitrides, Richmond, Va, USA, March 2000. View at: Google Scholar
 J. D. Brown, Y. Zhonghai, J. Mattews et al., “Visibleblind UV digital camera based on a $32\times 32$ array of GaN/AlGaN pin photodiodes,” MRS Internet Journal of Nitride Semiconductor Research, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 1–5, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
 G. Parish, S. Keller, P. Kozodoy et al., “Highperformance (Al,Ga) Nbased solarblind ultraviolet pin detectors on laterally epitaxially overgrown GaN,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 247–2249, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
 D. Walker, V. Kumar, K. Mi et al., “Solarblind AlGaN photodiodes with very low cutoff wavelength,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 403–405, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
 K. A. McIntosh, R. J. Molnar, L. J. Mahoney et al., “GaN avalanche photodiodes grown by hydride vaporphase epitaxy,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 75, no. 22, pp. 3485–3487, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
 J. C. Carrano, D. J. H. Lambert, C. J. Eiting et al., “GaN avalanche photodiodes,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 76, no. 7, pp. 924–926, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
 K. A. McIntosh, R. J. Molnar, L. J. Mahoney, K. M. Molvar, N. Efremow, and S. Verghese, “Ultraviolet photon counting with GaN avalanche photodiodes,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 76, no. 26, pp. 3938–3940, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
 B. Monemar, O. Lagerstedt, and H. P. Gislason, “Properties of Zndoped VPEgrown GaN. I. Luminescence data in relation to doping conditions,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 625–639, 1980. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Verghese, K. A. McIntosh, R. J. Molnar et al., “GaN avalanche photodiodes operating in lineargain mode and Geiger mode,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 502–511, 2001. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 V. A. Joshkin, C. A. Parker, S. M. Bedair et al., “Effect of growth temperature on point defect density of unintentionally doped GaN grown by metalorganic chemical vapor deposition and hydride vapor phase epitaxy,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 281–288, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
 Z. Vashaei, E. Cicek, C. Bayram, R. McClintock, and M. Razeghi, “GaN avalanche photodiodes grown on mplane freestanding GaN substrate,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 96, no. 20, Article ID 201908, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Acharyya and J. P. Banerjee, “Design and simulation of silicon carbide polytype doubledrift region avalanche photodiodes for UV sensing,” Journal of Optoelectronics and Advanced Materials, vol. 14, no. 78, pp. 630–639, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
 M. Ghosh, M. Mondal, and A. Acharyya, “4HSic avalanche photodiodes as uv sensors: a brief review,” Journal of Electron Devices, vol. 15, pp. 1291–1295, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
 K. Kunihiro, K. Kasahara, Y. Takahashi, and Y. Ohno, “Experimental evaluation of impact ionization coefficients in GaN,” IEEE Electron Device Letters, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 608–610, 1999. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Kramer and A. Micrea, “Determination of saturated electron velocity in GaAs,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 26, pp. 623–6624, 1975. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Chen and G. Wang, “Highfield properties of carrier transport in bulk wurtzite GaN: a Monte Carlo perspective,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 103, no. 2, Article ID 023703, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Electronic Archive, “New Semiconductor Materials, Characteristics and Properties,” 2013, http://www.ioffe.ru/SVA/NSM/Semicond. View at: Google Scholar
 G. Yu, G. Wang, H. Ishikawa et al., “Optical properties of wurtzite structure GaN on sapphire around fundamental absorption edge (0.78–4.77 eV) by spectroscopic ellipsometry and the optical transmission method,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 70, no. 24, pp. 3209–3211, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
 J. F. Muth, J. H. Lee, I. K. Shmagin et al., “Absorption coefficient, energy gap, exciton binding energy, and recombination lifetime of GaN obtained from transmission measurements,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 71, no. 18, pp. 2572–2574, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
 J. M. senior, Optical Fiber Communications: Principles and Practice, Pearson Education, 2nd edition, 2007.
 G. Ariyawansa, M. B. M. Rinzan, M. Strassburg et al., “GaN/AlGaN heterojunction infrared detector responding in 814 and 2070 μm ranges,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 89, no. 14, Article ID 141122, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. E. Elta, “The effect of mixed tunneling and avalanche breakdown on microwave transittime diodes,” Tech. Rep. 142, Electron Physics Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich, USA, 1978. View at: Google Scholar
 M. E. Elta and G. I. Haddad, “Mixed tunneling and avalanche mechanism in pn junctions and their effects on microwave transit time devices,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 694–702, 1978. View at: Google Scholar
 E. O. Kane, “Theory of tunneling,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 83–91, 1961. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. N. Dash and S. P. Pati, “Generalized simulation method for MITATTmode operation and studies on the influence of tunnel current on IMPATT properties,” Semiconductor Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 222–230, 1992. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Acharyya, M. Mukherjee, and J. P. Banerjee, “Influence of tunnel current on DC and dynamic properties of silicon based terahertz IMPATT source,” Terahertz Science and Technology, vol. 4, pp. 26–241, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
 V. Gopal, S. K. Singh, and R. M. Mehra, “Analysis of dark current contributions in mercury cadmium telluride junction diodes,” Infrared Physics and Technology, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 317–326, 2002. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. J. McIntyre, “Multiplication noise in uniform avalanche diodes,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 13, pp. 164–1168, 1966. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. M. Sze and K. K. Ng, Physics of Semiconductor Devices, John Wiley & Sons, Madras, India, 3rd edition, 2010.
 J. P. Banerjee, R. Mukherjee, J. Mukhopadhyay, and P. N. Mallik, “Studies on avalanche phase delay and the admittance of an optically illuminated indium phosphide avalanche transit time diode at millimeter wave window frequencies,” Physica Status Solidi A, vol. 153, no. 2, pp. 567–579, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
 J. P. Banerjee and R. Mukherjee, “Effect of electron and holedominant photocurrent on the millimetre wave properties of an indium phosphide IMPATT diode at a 94 GHz window under optical illumination,” Semiconductor Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1690–1695, 1994. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. W. Yen, M. K. Barnoski, R. G. Hunsperger, and R. T. Melville, “Switching of GaAs IMPATT diode oscillator by optical illumination,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 120–122, 1977. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Acharyya, S. Banerjee, and J. P. Banerjee, “Optical control of millimeterwave doubledrift region silicon IMPATT device,” Radioengineering, vol. 21, pp. 1208–1217, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
 A. Acharyya and J. P. Banerjee, “Analysis of photoirradiated doubledrift region silicon impact avalanche transit time devices in the millimeterwave and terahertz regime,” Terahertz Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 97–113, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
 A. Acharyya and J. P. Banerjee, “A comparative study on the effect of optical illumination on Si_{1x}Ge_{x} and Si based DDR IMPATT diodes at Wband,” Iranian Journal of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 179–189, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
 H. P. Vyas, R. J. Gutmann, and J. M. Borrego, “The effect of hole versus electron photocurrent on microwaveoptical interactions in IMPATT oscillators,” IEEE Trans Electron Devices, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 232–234, 1979. View at: Google Scholar
 A. J. Seeds and A. A. A. De Salles, “Optical control of microwave semiconductor devices,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 577–585, 1990. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. R. Forrest and A. J. Seeds, “Optical injection locking of impatt oscillators,” Electronics Letters, vol. 14, no. 19, pp. 626–627, 1978. View at: Google Scholar
 A. Schweighart, H. P. Vyas, J. M. Borrego, and R. J. Gutmann, “Avalanche diode structures suitable for microwaveoptical interactions,” Solid State Electronics, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1119–1121, 1978. View at: Google Scholar
 H. P. Vyas, R. J. Gutmann, and J. M. Borrego, “Leakage current enhancement in IMPATT oscillator by photoexcitation,” Electronics Letters, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 189–190, 1977. View at: Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Moumita Ghosh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.