Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T23:27:08.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is the End-of-Range Loops Kinetics Affected by Surface Proximity or Ion Beam Recoils Distribution?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

E. Ganin  and
A. Marwick
E. Ganin
Affiliation:
IBM Research Division, T.J. Watson Research Center Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
A. Marwick
Affiliation:
IBM Research Division, T.J. Watson Research Center Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Get access

Abstract

We studied formation and annihilation of dislocation loops formed beyond the amorphous/crystalline interface after indium and boron dual implantation and subsequent annealing in the 800–1 100°C temperature range. The residual damage for low (40 keV) and high (200 keV) energy In implants were compared. The depth of the amorphous region in the sample implanted with the higher energy ions was reduced by using anodic oxidation and etching, to equate it with that of the sample implanted by lower energy ions. This enabled the study of the effect of surface proximity on residual disorder upon annealing. The damage was strongly dependent on the energy of In ions. No end-of-range damage was observed for the low energy implant. High energy implantation resulted in end-of-range dislocation loops, stable below 1050°C. The loops kinetics was neither affected by their proximity to the surface, nor by In precipitation. Monte-Carlo full cascade simulation has been used to estimate the depth distribution of interstitials and vacancies produced by In implant.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 147: Symposium C – Ion Beam Processing of Advanced Electronic Materials , 1989 , 13
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1989

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 Thornton, J., Hemment, P.L.F., and Wilson, I.H., Nucl. Instrum. Methods B, 19/20, p. 307 (1987)Google Scholar
2. Jones, K.S., Prussin, S., and Weber, E.R., Appl. Phys. A45, p.1 (1988)Google Scholar
3. Ozturk, M.C., Wortman, J.J., Osburn, C.M., Ajmera, A., Rozgonyi, G.A., Frey, E., Chu, W.K., and Lee, C., IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, ED–35, p.659 (1988)Google Scholar
4. Ganin, E., Davari, B., Harame, D., Scilla, G. and Sai-Halasz, G.A. in Processing and Characterization of Materials, Using Ion Beams, edited by Rhen, L.E., Greene, J.E., Smidt, F.A. (Mater.Res.Soc.Proc. vol.128, Pittsburgh, PA 1989)Google Scholar
5. Ajmera, A.C. and Rozgonyi, G.A., Appl. Phys. Lett. vol.49, p. 1269 (1986)Google Scholar
6. Myers, E.R., Proc. of the 46-th Ann. Meeting of EMSA edited by Bailey, G.W, p.906 (1988)Google Scholar
7. Trumbore, F.A., Bell. Syst. Tech. J. Vol.39, p. 205 (1960)Google Scholar
8. Ganin, E. and Krakow, W., in High Resolution Microscopy of Materials, edited by Krakow, W., Ponce, F.A., Smith, D.J. (Mater.Res.Soc.Proc. vol.139, Pittsburgh, PA 1989)Google Scholar
9. Biersack, J.P. and Haggmark, L.G., Nucl. Intrum. Methods, vol.174, p.257 (1980)Google Scholar