Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:53:47.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Profile Changes and Self-sputtering during Low Energy Ion Implantation.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

W. Vandervorst ,
T. Janssens ,
B. Brijs ,
R. Lindsay ,
E. J. H. Collart ,
David A. Kirkwood ,
G. Mathot  and
G. Terwagne
W. Vandervorst
Affiliation:
IMEC, Kapeldreef 75, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium
T. Janssens
Affiliation:
IMEC, Kapeldreef 75, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium
B. Brijs
Affiliation:
IMEC, Kapeldreef 75, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium
R. Lindsay
Affiliation:
IMEC, Kapeldreef 75, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium
E. J. H. Collart
Affiliation:
Applied Materials UK Ltd, Parametric and Conductive Implant Division,Foundry Lane, Horsham, W-Sussex RH13 5PX, United Kingdom
David A. Kirkwood
Affiliation:
Applied Materials UK Ltd, Parametric and Conductive Implant Division,Foundry Lane, Horsham, W-Sussex RH13 5PX, United Kingdom
G. Mathot
Affiliation:
Univ. Namur, LARN, rue de Bruxelles 61, B-5000 Namur, Belgium
G. Terwagne
Affiliation:
Univ. Namur, LARN, rue de Bruxelles 61, B-5000 Namur, Belgium
Get access

Abstract

Continued device scaling requires the formation of ever-shallower junctions with low resistance. A desirable option to form these junctions is still the use of conventional ion implantation. However in order to meet the junction depth/sheet resistance goals, a strong reduction in implant energy and increase in implant dose is required. Earlier work for B and BF2-implants, has suggested that during low energy ion implantation self-sputtering may become an important factor influencing/limiting the retained dose. The basic mechanism for the selfsputtering with increasing dose is the increasing dopant concentration at the surface leading to an increased probability for re-emission by the sputtering process. Simple models describing ion retention in combination with sputtering are based on this concept and indeed predict a selfsputtering process limiting the final retained dose. Unfortunately the theoretical calculations only predict a significant sputtering at doses >51016 at/cm2 whereas experimental results already show a limit in retained dose at 5 1015at/cm2.

In order to confirm the experimental data, low energy B, BF2, As and Sb implants have been made. Dose retention was monitored using nuclear reaction analysis and RBS whereby details of the dopant profile (redistribution) were studied using high resolution SIMS. For As and Sb no self-sputtering up to a dose of 1 1016at/cm2 can be found. For B a small dose loss (<10%) is seen significantly below the literature data. For BF2 a 20 % dose loss is observed. None of the SIMS profiles provide sufficient evidence for enhanced B-surface migration as required to explain the enhanced self-sputtering. On the other hand such a surface migration is reminiscent of the observations in SIMS whereby also an enhanced mobility of B during ion irradiation is required to explain the anomalous B-surface peak in many SIMS profiles. Based on the SIMS profiles a component sputter yield for B can be derived which is significantly higher than the matrix sputter yield suggesting a weak bonding of the segregated species leading to a reduced surface binding energy and thus enhanced sputtering yield.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 717: Symposium C – Si Front-End Junction Formation Technologies , 2002 , C7.2
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2002

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. Agarwal, A., Gossmann, H.J., Eaglesham, D.J., Pelaz, L., Jacobson, D.C., Haynes, T.E. et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 3141 (1997)Google Scholar
2. Schulz, F. and Wittmaack, K., Rad. Effects 29, 31 (1976)Google Scholar
3. Agarwal, A., Gossmann, H.J., Fiory, A.T., Venezia, V.C. and Jacobson, D.C., ECS PV 2000-9, 49 (2000)Google Scholar
4. Albano, M.A., Babaram, V., Poate, J.M., Sosnowski, M. and Jacobson, D.C., MRS, Vol.610, B3.6 (2000)Google Scholar
5. Liu, J., Lu, X., Jin, J., Li, Q.M. and Chu, W.K., Proc. 16th Int. Conf. On Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry, eds Duggan, J.L. and Morgan, I.L., AIP,-CP576, 323 (2001)Google Scholar
6. Coote, G.E., Nucl. Instr. Meth. B66, 191 (1992)Google Scholar
7. Witte, H. De, Vandervorst, W. and Gijbels, R.: Joun Appl.Phys. 89(5), 30011 (2001)Google Scholar
8. Wadsworth, M., Armour, D.G., Badheka, R. and Collins, R., Int. J. Numerical Modelling, 3, 157 (1991)Google Scholar
9. Biersack, J.P. and Haggmark, L., Nucl. Instr. Meth. 174, 257 (1980).Google Scholar
10. Wittmaack, K., Surf. Interface Anal.,24, 389 (1996)Google Scholar
11. Vandervorst, W., Janssens, T., Loo, R., Caymax, M., Peytier, I., Lindsay, R.,Frühauf, J., Bergmaier, A. and Dollinger, G., Proc. SIMS-XIII (Nara, 2001), Appl. Surf. Sci (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
12. Wittmaack, K. Phys.Rev.B, Vol 56 (10), R5701–5704 (1997)Google Scholar