Effects of end-of-range dislocation loops on transient enhanced diffusion of indium implanted in silicon

Abstract

Articles you may be interested inEvolution of end-of-range damage and transient enhanced diffusion of indium in silicon Correlation of end-of-range damage evolution and transient enhanced diffusion of boron in regrown silicon Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 3844 (1999); 10.1063/1.125475 The effect of dose rate on interstitial release from the end-of-range implant damage region in silicon Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 3105 (1997); 10.1063/1.120260Size-distribution and annealing behavior of end-of-range dislocation loops in silicon-implanted silicon Transient enhanced diffusion of indium implanted in silicon is studied in the presence of the end-of-range ͑EOR͒ damage layer. To investigate the effect of EOR defects on the indium diffusion, the samples that were implanted with indium at a high dose (1ϫ10 13 -5ϫ10 14 /cm 2 ) sufficient to produce the amorphous layer were prepared. Transmission electron microscopy measurements and Rutherford backscattering spectrometry reveal the amorphization threshold of indium implantation is around 5ϫ10 13 /cm 2 for 200 keV, 115 In ϩ implanted with 100 A/cm 2 beam current density at room temperature. These results are consistent with Monte Carlo simulation of implantation. Monte Carlo simulations indicate the deviation from the plus one model due to the mass effect of indium. After amorphization, following both RTA at 1000°C and furnace anneal at low temperature ͑650 and 850°C) in nitrogen ambient showed the formation of extrinsic EOR dislocation loops below the original amorphous/crystalline interface. During this process, strong segregation of indium toward the EOR dislocation loops is clearly observed. The profile shift of indium at a concentration of 1 ϫ10 17 atoms/cm 3 is not proportional to the implanted dose. Since most interstitials condense into EOR dislocation loops, diffusivity enhancement of indium is not proportional to the implant dose above amorphization threshold.

Double pocket architecture using indium and boron for sub-100 nm MOSFETs

“…Recent diffusion studies of indium indicate that indium diffusion strongly depends on the implant damage and the damage profile after the indium implant [8], [9]. SIMS analysis of the shallow arsenic extensions and indium pocket profiles is shown in Fig.…”

“…It is confirmed by TEM images that the locus of deeper indium peaks corresponds to the initial amorphous/crystal interface at the depth of around 70 nm, 100 nm, 125 nm, respectively. The end-of-range dislocation loops during the 0741-3106/01$10.00 © 2001 IEEE annealing are generated below the amorphous/crystal interface and become the trap site of interstitials and dopants [8]. The 50 keV indium implants had little impact on the formation of EOR dislocation loops.…”

“…For indium pocket profiling, two approaches, that is, low-dose tilted ion implantation [6] and high-dose ion implantation [7], have been explored. This paper describes double pocket architecture using indium and boron for a sub-100 nm MOSFET structure on the basis of indium pocket profiling at higher dose than the amorphization threshold ( cm ) [8], [9]. At high dose, the low-energy indium pockets realize the improvement of short channel effects and shallow extension formation of highly doped drain, maintaining the low junction leakage level.…”

Defect suppression of indium end-of-range during solid phase epitaxy annealing using Si1−yCy in silicon

“…An indium implant was intentionally chosen to induce the EOR damage to the silicon substrate as it segregates into the EOR of the implant profile during annealing [10,13,14]. It has been established that this anomalous indium diffusion is attributed by the presence of dislocation loops which are considered energetically more stable.…”

“…diameter ptype silicon wafer of [100] orientation to determine experimentally the location of the EOR defects. An indium implant at dose of 1 Â10 14 cm À 2 , which is sufficiently high to induce an amorphous layer with EOR defects [14], was performed. The implant energy was 115 keV with a tilt angle of 7-to prevent channeling.…”