Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:01:27.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic studies of SiGe/Si islands nucleated via separate in situ, or ex situ, Ga+ focused ion beam-guided growth techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

T. E. Vandervelde ,
S. Atha ,
T. L. Pernell ,
R. Hull  and
J.C. Bean
T. E. Vandervelde
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Virginia, 382 McCormick Road, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA
S. Atha
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science, University of Virginia, 116 Engineers Way, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA
T. L. Pernell
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Virginia, 351 McCormick Road, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA
R. Hull
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science, University of Virginia, 116 Engineers Way, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA
J.C. Bean
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Virginia, 382 McCormick Road, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA
Get access

Abstract

In this study we use 25keV in situ and 30keV ex situ Ga+ focused ion beams (FIB) to locally modify the substrate before deposition to determine its affect on nucleation of MBE-grown Ge/Si islands. FIB processing may alter island formation in at least four ways: the surfactant effect of Ga+, doping effects of subsurface Ga+, crystalline damage, and surface roughening. To explore these possibilities, we milled square regions of increasing Ga+ doses and used AFM to monitor islanding in and around these regions. For in situ experiments, doses ranged from ∼1013 to 5×1017ions/cm2. We began to observe changes in island topology at doses as low as ∼1014ions/cm2. For doses of ∼1015ions/cm2 to ∼8×1016ions/cm2, implanted areas were surrounded by denuded zones that grew from ∼0.5 to 6 μm. Immediately inside the implanted area, island concentration (size and density) appeared to peak. At doses above ∼6×1016ions/cm2, Ga+ produced noticeable surface depressions, which were often surrounded by enhanced island densities, rather than a denuded zone. For ex situ FIB patterning, samples underwent both pre-growth cleaning and growth of a thin capping layer. Doses ranging from 7.5×1013 to ∼1017 ions/cm2 were used with varied capping layer thicknesses to study their combined affect on island nucleation. The results correspond well with in situ experiments for thin capping layers. Increased capping layer thickness show muted modifications for low Ga+ doses, while for higher doses trends similar to the in situ results are seen.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 794: Symposium T – Self-Organized Processes in Semiconductor Heteroepitaxy , 2003 , T4.7
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

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. Liu, W.K., and Santos, M.B., Thin Films, Heteroepitaxial systems, (Chapter 1.1.2)Google Scholar
2. Liu, W.K., and Santos, M.B., Thin Films, Heteroepitaxial systems, (Chapter 2)Google Scholar
3. Dismukes, J.P., Ekstrom, L., Paff, R. J., J. Phys. Chem. 68, 3021 (1964)Google Scholar
4. Hull, R., Bean, J.C., Jour. Vac Sci. Tech. A 7, 2580 (1989).Google Scholar
5. Braun, A., Briggs, K. M. and Böni, P., Journal of Crystal Growth, 241, 1–2, (2002)Google Scholar
6. Kasper, E., Applied Surface Science, 102, (1996).Google Scholar
7. People, R., Bean, JC, Applied Physics Letters 47, 322, (1985); 49 229, (1986).Google Scholar
8. Tromp, R.M. and Ross, F., Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 30, 431 (2000).Google Scholar
9. Tromp, R.M., Ross, F. and Reuter, M.C., Phys. Rev. Let. 84, 4641 (2000).Google Scholar
10. Mo, Y.W., Savage, D.E., Swartzenruber, B.S. and Lagally, M.G., Phys. Rev. Let. 65, 1020 (1990).Google Scholar
11. Floro, J.A., Chason, E., et al., Physical Review B, 59, 1990, (1999)Google Scholar
12. Tomitori, M., Watanabe, K., Kobayashi, M., and Nishikawa, O., Appl. Surf. Sci. 76/77, 322 (1994).Google Scholar
13. Medeiros-Ribeiro, Gilberto, Bratkovski, Alexander M., Kamins, Theodore I., Ohlberg, Douglas A. A., and Stanley Williams, R., Science 279, 353 (1998).Google Scholar
14. Ross, F.M., Tersoff, J. and Tromp, R.M., Phys. Rev. Let. 80, 984 (1998).Google Scholar
15. Jacak, L., Hawrylak, P., Wójs, A., Quantum Dots, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany (1998).Google Scholar
16. Kamins, T. I., Ohlberg, D. A. A., Stanley Williams, R., et al., Applied Physics Letters, 74(12), 1773–1775 (1999).Google Scholar
17. Vescan, L., Stoica, T. and Holländer, B., Materials Science and Engineering B, 89, 49–53 (2002).Google Scholar
18. Jin, G., Liu, J.L., et al. Thin Solid Films, 369, 49–54 (2000).Google Scholar
19. Katayama, M., Nakayama, T., et al., Physical Review B, 54(12), 8600–8604 (1996).Google Scholar
20. Portavoce, A., Volpi, F., et al., Thin Solid Films, 380, 164–168 (2000).Google Scholar
21. Lin, X.W. et al., Physical Review B, 52(23), 16581–16587 (1995).Google Scholar
22. Zhou, X., Shi, B., et al,. Thin Solid Films, 369, 92–95 (2000).Google Scholar
23. Takamiya, H., Miura, M., et al., Thin Solid Films, 369, 84–87 (2000)Google Scholar
24. Wakayama, Y., Gerth, G., et al., Journal of Crystal Growth 231 474–487 (2001).Google Scholar
25. Kammler, M., Hull, R., Reuter, M.C., Ross, F.M., Applied Physics Letters, 82(7), 1093–1095 (2003).Google Scholar
26. Wang, J.B., Datta, A, Wang, Y.L., Applied Surface Science, 135 129–136 (1998).Google Scholar
27. Lehrer, C., Frey, L., et al., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B, 19(6), 2533–2537 (2001).Google Scholar