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

∆a/a (x 10 -3 )
4,0 epi550
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
epi600
epi650
epi700
1,5
1,0
1) 3)
0,5
0,0
-0,5
-1,0
2)
0 5 10 15
6.3.3.3 Comparison between MEIS and x-ray scattering results
Both XRD and MEIS techniques are sensitive to the regrowth of the amorphised
Si during the annealing but in different ways. While MEIS measures the disordered Si,
XRD is sensitive to the crystalline part of the sample. Figure 6.22 shows a plot of the
width of the SPER layer measured by MEIS against that by XRD. There is a linear
relationship with a constant offset between the results from the two measurement
techniques. It follows that the definition of the reference points, which the regrown
layer thickness is measured between, is different for the two techniques but otherwise
the results tell the same story. The differences become evident when the details of the
measurements are considered.
MEIS: Regrown depth (nm)
a)
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
Depth in c-Si [nm]
Epi 550 C
Epi 600 C
Epi 650 C
Epi 700 C
Linear Fit
Regrown layer thickness
4.5
5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0
XRD: Regrown depth (nm)
Figure 6.22 Thickness of the regrown layer: comparison between MEIS and
XRD results. The constant off-set is due to the different definitions of the
start and points for the two techniques.
L h
154
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
epi550
epi600
epi650
epi700
0 5 10 15
Depth in c-Si [nm]
Figure 6.21 a) Lattice parameter strain profile in the growth direction resulting from the best
fit. b) Static disorder depth profile resulting from the best fit. From (18, 19).
b)