Damage formation and annealing studies of low energy ion implants ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Yield (counts per 5 µC) 80 60 40 20 80 60 40 20 0 as-implanted As profiles for varying He + energies SRIM 2000 SRIM 2003 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Depth (nm) 89 100 keV 150 keV 200 keV 100 keV 150 keV 200 keV Figure 4.17 Comparison of depth scales calibrated using inelastic energy loss rates from SRIM 2000 (top) and SRIM 2003 (bottom). Gaussian distributions have been fitted to the peaks and dashed lines have been placed through the centre for clarity.
Inelastic energy loss (eV/Ang) 32 28 24 20 16 12 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 He + energy (keV) 4.2.3.2 Determination of beam energy He + in Si stopping powers. SRIM 2000 SRIM 2003 Fit to SRIM 2003 Fit parameters Y =4.41388+0.22226 X-6.88878E-4 X 2 +8.73673E-7 X 3 Figure 4.18 He inelastic energy loss rates in Si as a function of energy, taken from SRIM 2000 and SRIM 2003. The function, of a best fit to the values from SRIM 2003 is given. With the MEIS system it is not possible to set the beam energy to a reproducible energy with sufficient accuracy so that any minor energy differences occurring from one day to another would not be noticeable on the energy and hence depth scales. A difference of approximately a few hundred volts would cause a difference around 0.5 nm on a depth scale, depending on scattering conditions and element. With the original power supply used earlier in the project this level of variation was common and despite an improvement later on in the project with a new power supply, beam energy variations still needed to be accounted for. The original approach for this was to align the Si peaks of all data sets, to the Si peak on the spectra from a reference virgin Si sample, using a multiplication factor of the energy scales. All the samples could be compared with the “same” beam energy. This alignment approach is in theory reasonable in view of the fact that the energy for scattering at the surface is dependant on the kinematic factor and the beam energy only. Complications with this alignment method arose however. The most significant problem was the lack of a perfectly definable position on each spectrum to align to the virgin. A 90
Page 1 and 2:
Damage formation and annealing stud
Page 3 and 4:
3.2.2.6 Other models 40 3.2.3 Other
Page 5 and 6:
Chapter 7 Interaction between Xe, F
Page 7 and 8:
List of Figures Figure 1.1 a) Schem
Page 9 and 10:
Figure 4.13 Variation in the kinema
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 6.10 MEIS energy spectra for
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 7.8 Combined MEIS Xe depth p
Page 15 and 16:
Abbreviations and Symbols a/c amorp
Page 17 and 18:
Abstract The work described in this
Page 19 and 20:
Chapter 7 5 M. Werner, J.A. van den
Page 21 and 22:
terminal (Vg), current cannot flow
Page 23 and 24:
This is an approximate average leve
Page 25 and 26:
the active channel, adjacent to the
Page 27 and 28:
To continue to improve devices ther
Page 29 and 30:
produces a device quality regrown l
Page 31 and 32:
technique of channelling Rutherford
Page 33 and 34:
22 J.S Williams. Solid Phase Recrys
Page 35 and 36:
and the probability of scattering t
Page 37 and 38:
importance for many atomic collisio
Page 39 and 40:
M1, V0, E0 Figure 2.2 Elastic scatt
Page 41 and 42:
2.3.1 Models for inelastic energy l
Page 43 and 44:
dE/dx (ev/Ang) 10 1 Inelastic Energ
Page 45 and 46:
dE/dx (eV/Ang) 125 100 75 50 25 0 2
Page 47 and 48:
Figure 2.5 Results of TRIM simulati
Page 49 and 50:
Chapter 3 Damage and Annealing proc
Page 51 and 52:
the Si/SiO2 interface, consuming th
Page 53 and 54:
On the basis that by creating an in
Page 55 and 56:
Figure 3.4 Structure of crystalline
Page 57 and 58: a Si atom will suffer little angula
Page 59 and 60: 3.2.2.5 Homogeneous model (Critical
Page 61 and 62: Sputtering and atomic mixing play a
Page 63 and 64: and is approximately 25 times faste
Page 65 and 66: elevant dopants later. For equal co
Page 67 and 68: nearest neighbour distance (52). By
Page 69 and 70: Category I defects are produced whe
Page 71 and 72: thermal annealing (600 - 700 °C an
Page 73 and 74: Figure 3.11 Relationship between im
Page 75 and 76: defect pairs due to Coulomb attract
Page 77 and 78: ⎛ 〈 C ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ I 〉 〈 C V
Page 79 and 80: 27 R.D. Goldberg, J. S. Williams, a
Page 81 and 82: 67 H. Bracht. Diffusion Mechanism a
Page 83 and 84: Hall effect measurements were carri
Page 85 and 86: energy than one scattered from an a
Page 87 and 88: epresents a small improvement over
Page 89 and 90: (dE/dx)out multiplied by the path l
Page 91 and 92: they are small compared to the diff
Page 93 and 94: ackscattering (27). This fact forms
Page 95 and 96: Figure 4.7 a) Plot of a Gaussian di
Page 97 and 98: similar to the width of the error f
Page 99 and 100: UP Ion Beam SPIN Rotation Sample Sc
Page 101 and 102: Kinematic factor (K) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.
Page 103 and 104: Figure 4.14 Illustration of the dou
Page 105 and 106: 4.2.2.4 Interpretation of spectra A
Page 107: with are comparatively small, ~ 0.5
Page 111 and 112: iterative procedure is carried out
Page 113 and 114: Yield (couts per 5µC) 300 250 200
Page 115 and 116: SIMS experiments were also carried
Page 117 and 118: MEIS, using the scattering conditio
Page 119 and 120: 4.5 Sample production Samples have
Page 121 and 122: an N2/O2 environment to maintain an
Page 123 and 124: 38 M. Anderle, M. Barozzi, M. Bersa
Page 125 and 126: damage evolution behaviour observed
Page 127 and 128: Yield (counts per 5 µC) 250 200 15
Page 129 and 130: essentially a “zero dose” profi
Page 131 and 132: no longer “visible” in MEIS has
Page 133 and 134: yield (cts / 5µC) 500 400 300 200
Page 135 and 136: 5.4 Conclusion MEIS analysis with a
Page 137 and 138: Chapter 6 Annealing studies 6.1 Int
Page 139 and 140: 6.2.2.2 Results and Discussion Figu
Page 141 and 142: theory predictions and X-ray fluore
Page 143 and 144: implantation conditions are those u
Page 145 and 146: a) b) c) Yield (counts per 5 µC) Y
Page 147 and 148: greater than MEIS. SIMS is not sens
Page 149 and 150: attributed to the interference betw
Page 151 and 152: The as-implanted sample, with a bro
Page 153 and 154: a) b) Yield (counts per 5 µC) Yiel
Page 155 and 156: interface, as evidenced by the high
Page 157 and 158: duration, is observed. MEIS results
Page 159 and 160:
Yield (counts per 5µC) 500 400 300
Page 161 and 162:
ack edges of the Si peaks are very
Page 163 and 164:
underneath the SiO2 layer, iii) it
Page 165 and 166:
R s (Ω/sq) 950 900 850 800 750 60
Page 167 and 168:
As concentration (at/cm 3 ) 1E22 1E
Page 169 and 170:
R s (Ω/sq) 950 900 850 800 750 70
Page 171 and 172:
Following annealing it was observed
Page 173 and 174:
∆a/a (x 10 -3 ) 4,0 epi550 3,5 3,
Page 175 and 176:
Yield (counts per 5 uC) 350 300 250
Page 177 and 178:
(FWHM). Concomitantly, As in the re
Page 179 and 180:
Yield (counts per 5 µC) 450 400 35
Page 181 and 182:
The higher temperature anneals carr
Page 183 and 184:
ecomes steeper for the sample annea
Page 185 and 186:
Figure 6.28 Schematic illustrations
Page 187 and 188:
and the 2D picture in Figure 6.31b)
Page 189 and 190:
6.5 Conclusion In summary, in this
Page 191 and 192:
20 L. Capello, T. H. Metzger, M. We
Page 193 and 194:
egarding B profiles relevant to the
Page 195 and 196:
Yield (counts per 5 µC) 400 300 20
Page 197 and 198:
TRIM AU 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 TRIM si
Page 199 and 200:
a) F profile PAI 3 keV BF2 b) F pro
Page 201 and 202:
Yield (counts per 5 µC) 20 15 10 5
Page 203 and 204:
the corresponding PAI sample, yield
Page 205 and 206:
amorphous matrix, (16) i.e. local c
Page 207 and 208:
21 M. Anderle, M. Bersani, D. Giube
Page 209 and 210:
stopped at depths beyond the observ
Page 211:
the role of each individual element
show all

Damage formation and annealing studies of low energy ion implants ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?