Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:02:57.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ion Implantation Effect on Dislocation Propagation in Pseudomorphically Strained P/P+ Silicon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Petra Feichtinger
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1595, U.S.A
Ben Poust
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1595, U.S.A
Hiroaki Fukuto
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1595, U.S.A
Rajinder Sandhu
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1595, U.S.A
Mark S. Goorsky
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1595, U.S.A
Dwain Oster
Affiliation:
Wacker Siltronic Corporation, Portland, OR 97210, U.S.A
Steve F. Rickborn
Affiliation:
Wacker Siltronic Corporation, Portland, OR 97210, U.S.A
Jim Moreland
Affiliation:
Wacker Siltronic Corporation, Portland, OR 97210, U.S.A
Get access

Abstract

We studied damage evolution and the influence on defect interactions as a function of Si self implantation dose in p/p+ silicon wafers. Highly boron doped 150 mm diameter silicon substrate wafers with a 2.5 μm thick nominally un-doped epitaxial layer (p/p+) were employed. Due to the misfit strain, misfit dislocations formed during the epitaxial growth process around the wafer edges. This localized dislocation distribution was utilized to study the role of the implant on both the nucleation and growth of the misfit dislocation segments. Triple axis x-ray diffraction was used to determine changes to the strain in the layer due to both the implant and to subsequent annealing. Double axis x-ray topography combined with rapid thermal annealing was used to measure the nucleation and extension of the misfit dislocation segments after annealing. For the lower implantation dose (1012 cm−2) samples, the velocity of dislocations was reduced measurably and the density of newly formed misfit dislocations also decreased significantly relative to regions that received no ion implantation. A higher implantation dose reduced the nucleation and glide velocity further such that neither glide nor nucleation of new segments was detected. SIMS measurements confirmed that the interfacial lattice parameter grading was not appreciably different after an anneal step for the lower implant dose sample, but was measurable for the higher dose sample. In the latter case, transient point defect enhanced diffusion of boron was responsible for the grading. However, the lack of grading in the low dose sample indicates that interfacial grading did not significantly impede dislocation kinetics. This comparison indicates that it is the excess point defects that are produced during implantation that retard both the nucleation and extension of misfit dislocation segments.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

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

1. Matthews, J. W. and Blakeslee, A. E., J. Crystal Growth 27, 118125 (1974).Google Scholar
2. Fueller, J., Kunuma, M., Zipperich, J., and Banhart, F., Appl. Phys. A 69, 597603 (1999).Google Scholar
3. Kim, S.-D., Lord, S. M., and Harris, J. J.S., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 14, 642646 (1996).10.1116/1.589150Google Scholar
4. Libertino, S., Benton, J.L., Coffa, S., and Eaglesham, D.J., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 504, 314 (1998).10.1557/PROC-504-3Google Scholar
5. Hull, R., Bean, J. C., Bonar, J. M., Higashi, G. S., Short, K. T., Temkin, H., and White, A. E., Appl. Phys. Lett. 56, 2445 (1990).10.1063/1.102904Google Scholar
6. Stirpe, M. B., Perovic, D. D., Lafontaine, H. L., and Goldberg, R. D., Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. 157, 127130 (1997).Google Scholar
7. Hull, R., Stach, E. A., Tromp, R., Ross, F., and Reuter, M., Phys. Stat. Sol. (a) 171, 133146 (1999).10.1002/(SICI)1521-396X(199901)171:1<133::AID-PSSA133>3.0.CO;2-D3.0.CO;2-D>Google Scholar
8. Feichtinger, P., Fukuto, H., Sandhu, R., Poust, B., and Goorsky, M. S., in Thin Films-Stresses and Mechanical Properties VIII, Boston, MA, 1999 (Materials Research Society).Google Scholar
9. Fukuto, H., Feichtinger, P., U'Ren, G. D., Lindo, S., Goorsky, M. S., Magee, T., Oster, D., and Moreland, J., J. Crystal Growth 209, 716723 (2000).10.1016/S0022-0248(99)00632-6Google Scholar
10. Holloway, H. and McCarthy, S. L., J. Appl. Phys. 73, 103110 (1993).10.1063/1.353886Google Scholar