2017
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/aa7523
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling of defect generation during plasma etching and its impact on electronic device performance—plasma-induced damage

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
40
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 113 publications
2
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The thicknesses of the surface and interfacial layer are denoted as d SL and d IL , respectively, thus, d dam = d SL + d IL . This model was confirmed to be valid for the PPD analysis in the present d dam range and is widely used for in‐line monitoring . The details of the PPD characterizations have been reported elsewhere …”
Section: Ppd Model For Progressive Damaged Layer Thicknesssupporting
confidence: 66%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The thicknesses of the surface and interfacial layer are denoted as d SL and d IL , respectively, thus, d dam = d SL + d IL . This model was confirmed to be valid for the PPD analysis in the present d dam range and is widely used for in‐line monitoring . The details of the PPD characterizations have been reported elsewhere …”
Section: Ppd Model For Progressive Damaged Layer Thicknesssupporting
confidence: 66%
“…Figure shows the detailed structures of the damaged region under various ion doses D ion1 , D ion2 , and D ion3 , accompanied by the result by a molecular dynamics (MD) simulation on the top. Some of the MD simulations results regarding the damaged layer formation have been presented elsewhere . The MD simulation result shows the presence of Ar atoms deep in the Si substrate and the interfacial region with knocked‐on Si, O, and Ar atoms.…”
Section: Ppd Model For Progressive Damaged Layer Thicknessmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 3 more Smart Citations