Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T03:47:32.152Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microstructural evolution of low-dose separation by implanted oxygen materials implanted at 65 and 100 keV

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Jun Sik Jeoung ,
Philip Anderson  and
Supapan Seraphin
Jun Sik Jeoung*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721
Philip Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721
Supapan Seraphin
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721
*
a) Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Thin separation by implanted oxygen substrates are attractive candidates for low-power, low-voltage electronic devices and can be obtained by low-dose, low-energy oxygen–ion implantation. We report in this study a variation of the process parameters that have never been investigated before, particularly for implantation with a high current density implanter. Characterization of the sample sets by transmission electron microscopy, secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS), and Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS) shows an optimum dose of 3.0 to 3.5 × 1017 O+/cm2 at 100 keV for forming a continuous buried oxide (BOX) layer compared to 2.5 × 1017 O+/cm2 at 65 keV. At this optimum condition for 100 keV, the thickness of Si top layers and BOX layers is in the range of 175–185 nm and 70–80 nm, respectively. Analysis of the breakdown voltage of small area capacitors shows a breakdown field in the range of 6.0–7.0 MV/cm, which is adequate for low-power, low-voltage devices. SIMS analysis shows that the maximum oxygen concentration of as-implanted samples is located at depths of 160 and 240 nm for the implantation energy of 65 and 100 keV, respectively. A significant redistribution of oxygen occurs at temperatures above 1300 °C during the ramping process. RBS analysis showed that a high-quality crystalline Si layer was produced after annealing at 1350 °C for 4 h. The defect density determined by the chemical etching method was found to be very low (<300 defects per cm2) for all samples with a dose range of 3.0 × 1017 O+/cm2 to 6.0 × 1017 O+/cm2 implanted at 100 keV. However, a 65 keV sample with a dose of 4.5 × 1017 O+/cm2 contains about 109 defects per cm2. The larger defect density in the 65-keV sample may be due to the shift of oxygen depth distribution toward the surface, resulting in easier defect extension during the annealing process. The oxide precipitates in the Si overlayer play a key role in defect reduction by blocking the extension of dislocations to the surface.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 18 , Issue 9 , September 2003 , pp. 2177 - 2187
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Plossl, A. and Kurauter, G., Solid-State Electronics, 44, 775 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Cristoloveanu, S. and Li, S.S., Electrical Characterization of Silicon-On-Insulator Materials and Devices (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1995).Google Scholar
3.Allen, L.P., Skinner, W., and Cate, A., in Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International SOI Conference (Piscataway, NJ, 2001), pp. 5–7.Google Scholar
4.Hill, D., Fraundorf, P., and Fraundorf, G., J. Appl. Phys. 63, 4933 (1988).Google Scholar
5.Margail, J., Stoemenos, J., Jaussaud, C., and Bruel, M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 54, 526 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Venables, D., Jones, K.S., and Namavar, F., Appl. Phys. Lett. 60, 3147 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Namavar, F., Cortesi, E., Buchanan, B., Manke, J.M., and Kalkhoran, N.M., in Phase Formation and Modification by Beam-Solid Interactions, edited by Was, G.S., Rehn, L.E., and Follstaedt, D.M. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 235, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992), p. 109.Google Scholar
8.Li, Y., Kilner, J.A., Chater, R.J., Tate, T.J., Hemment, P.L.F., and Nejim, A., in Phase Formation and Modification by Beam-Solid Interactions, edited by Was, G.S., Rehn, L.E., and Follstaedt, D.M. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 235, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992), p. 115.Google Scholar
9.Li, Y., Kilner, J.A., Hemment, P.L.F., Robinson, A.K., Zhang, J.P., Reeson, K.J., Marsh, C.D., and Booker, G.R., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 64, 750 (1992).Google Scholar
10.Robin, A.K., Li, Y., Marsh, C.D., Chater, R.J., Hemment, P.L.F., Kilner, J.A., and Booker, G.R., Mater. Sci. Eng. B 12, 41 (1992).Google Scholar
11.Nejim, A., Li, Y., Marsh, C.D., Hemment, P.L.F., Charter, R.J., Kilner, J.A., and Booker, G.R., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 80/81, 822 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Anc, M.J., Blake, J.G., and Nakai, T., in Silicon-On-Insulator Technology and Devices IX, edited by Hemment, P.L. (The Electrochemical Society Proceedings Series PV99-3, Pennington, NJ, 1999), p. 51.Google Scholar
13.Jiao, J., Johnson, B., Seraphin, S., Anc, M.J., Dolan, R.P., and Cordts, B.F., Mater. Sci. Eng. B 72, 150 (2000).Google Scholar
14.Johnson, B., Tan, Y., Anderson, P., Seraphin, S., and Anc, M.J., J. Electrochem. Soc. 148, G63 (2001).Google Scholar
15.Zieger, J.F., Handbook of Ion Implantation Technology (Elsevier Science Publisher, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992).Google Scholar
16.El-Ghor, M.K., Pennycook, S.J., Namavar, F., and Karam, N.H., Appl. Phys. Lett. 57, 156 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Ishimura, M., Tsunemori, T., Harada, S., Arita, M., and Motooka, T., Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 148, 311 (1999).Google Scholar
18.Ishikawa, Y. and Shibata, N., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 91, 520 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Weber, R. and Skorupa, W., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 149, 99 (1999).Google Scholar
20.Reiss, S. and Heinig, K.H., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 84, 229 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Giles, L.F., Nejim, A., and Hemment, P.L.F., Mater. Chem. Phys. 35, 129 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Nakashima, S. and Izumi, K., J. Mater. Res. 8, 523 (1993).Google Scholar
23.Bagchi, S., Lee, D.J., Krause, S.J., and Roitman, P., Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE SOI Conference (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, 1995), p. 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Cerofolini, C.F., Bertoni, S., Meda, L., and Spaggiari, C., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 84, 234 (1994).Google Scholar
25.Krause, S.J., Jung, C.O., Ravi, T.S., Wilson, S.R., and Burke, D.E., in Silicon-On-Insulator and Buried Metabolism in Semiconductors, edited by Sturm, J.C., Chen, C.K., Pfeiffer, L., and Hemment, P.L.F. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 107, Pittsburgh, PA, 1988), p. 93.Google Scholar
26.Nejim, A., Marsh, C.D., Giles, L.F., Hemment, P.L.F., Li, Y., Chater, R.J., Kilner, J.A., and Booker, G.R., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 84, 248 (1994).Google Scholar