Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:30:28.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sputtering Induced Changes in Defect Morphology and Dopant Diffusion for Si Implanted GaAs: Influence of Ion Energy and Implant Temperature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

H.G. Robinson ,
C.C. Lee ,
T.E. Haynes ,
E.L. Allen ,
M.D. Deal  and
K.S. Jones
H.G. Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
C.C. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
T.E. Haynes
Affiliation:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
E.L. Allen
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Engineering, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192
M.D. Deal
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
K.S. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Get access

Abstract

Experimental observations of dopant diffusion and defect formation are reported as a function of ion energy and implant temperature in Si implanted GaAs. In higher energy implants (>100 keV), little or no diffusion occurs, while at energies less than 100 keV, the amount of dopant redistribution is inversely proportional to energy. The extended defect density shows the opposite trend, increasing with increasing ion energy. Similarly, the diffusion of Si during post implant annealing decreases by a factor of 2.5 as the implant temperature increases from -2 to 40°C. In this same temperature range, the maximum depth and density of extrinsic dislocation loops increases by factors of 3 and 4, respectively. Rutherford Backscattering (RBS) channeling measurements indicate that Si implanted GaAs undergoes an amorphous to crystalline transition at Si implant temperatures between -51 and 40°C. A unified explanation of the effects of ion energy and implant temperature on both diffusion and dislocation formation is proposed based on the known differences in sputter yields between low and high energy ions and crystalline and amorphous semiconductors. The model assumes that the sputter yield is enhanced at low implant energies and by amorphization, thus increasing the excess vacancy concentration. Estimates of excess vacancy concentration are obtained by simulations of the diffusion profiles and are quantitatively consistent with a realistic sputter yield enhancement. Removal of the vacancy rich surface by etching prior to annealing completely suppresses the Si diffusion and increases the dislocation density, lending further experimental support to the model.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 354: Symposium A – Beam Solid Interactions for Materials Synthesis and Characterization , 1994 , 337
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

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 Packan, P. A. and Plummer, J. D., Appi. Phys. Lett. 56, 1787 (1990).Google Scholar
2 Deal, M. D. and Robinson, H. G., Appi. Phys. Lett. 55, 996 (1989).Google Scholar
3 Lee, D. H. and Malbon, R. M., Appi. Phys. Lett. 30, 327 (1977).Google Scholar
4 Kasahara, J., Kato, Y., Arai, M. and Watanabe, N., J. Electro. Chem. Soc. 130, 2275 (1983).Google Scholar
5 Yeo, Y. K., Hengehold, R. L., Kim, Y. Y., Eziz, A., Park, Y. S. and Ehret, J. E., J. Appi. Phys. 58,4083(1985).Google Scholar
6 Allen, E. L., Murray, J. J., Deal, M. D., Plummer, J. D., Jones, K. S. and Rubart, W. S., J. of Electro. Chem. Soc. 138, 3440 (1991).Google Scholar
7 Murray, J. J., Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 1992.Google Scholar
8 Haynes, T. E. and Holland, O. W., Appi. Phys. Lett. 52, 452 (1991).Google Scholar
9 Jones, K. S., Robinson, H. G., Haynes, T. E., Deal, M. D., Lee, C. C. and Allen, E. L., in III-V Electronic and Photonic Device Fabrication and Performance, edited by Jones, K. S., Pearton, S. J. and Kanber, H. (Materials Research Society 300, Pittsburgh, 1993) p. 323.Google Scholar
10 Lee, C. C., Deal, M. D., Jones, K. S., Robinson, H. G. and Bravman, J. C., J. of Electrochemical Soc. 141, 2245 (1994).Google Scholar
11 Robinson, H. G., Haynes, T. E., Allen, E. L., Lee, C. C., Deal, M. D. and Jones, K. S., J. of Appi. Phys. 78, (1994).Google Scholar
12 Murray, J. J., Deal, M. D. and Stevenson, D. A., Appi. Phys. Lett. 56, 472 (1989).Google Scholar
13 Lee, C. C., Deal, M. D. and Bravman, J. C., Appi. Phys. Lett. (1994).Google Scholar
14 Malherbe, J. B., Crit. Rev. in Sol. State and Mats. Sci. 19, 55 (1994).Google Scholar
15 Anderson, G. S., J. of Appi. Phys. 38, 1607 (1967).Google Scholar
16 Farren, J. and Scaife, W. J., Talanta 15, 1217 (1968).Google Scholar
17 Holmén, G., Rad. Eff. 24, 7 (1975).Google Scholar
18 Nizam, J. and Benazeth-Colombie, N., Rev. Phys. Appi. 10, 183 (1975).Google Scholar
19 Deal, M. D., Hu, C. J., Lee, C. C. and Robinson, H. G., in III-V Electronic and Photonic Device Fabrication and Performance, edited by Jones, K. S., Pearton, S. J. and Kanber, H. (Materials Research Society 300, Pittsburgh, 1993) p. 365.Google Scholar
20 Biersack, J. P. and Haggmark, L. G., Nucl. Inst. Meth. 174, 257 (1980).Google Scholar
21 Deal, M. D., Hansen, S. E. and Sigmon, T. W., IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Design CAD- 8. 939 (1989).Google Scholar
22 Lee, C. C., Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 1994.Google Scholar