Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:19:27.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ultra-Shallow Junctions by Ion Implantation and Rapid Thermal Annealing: Spike-Anneals, Ramp Rate Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Aditya Agarwal
Affiliation:
Eaton Semiconductor Equipment Operations, 55 Cherry Hill Drive, Beverly, MA 01915, USA
Hans-J. Gossmann
Affiliation:
Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, 600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ 07974, USA
Anthony T. Fiory
Affiliation:
Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, 600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ 07974, USA
Get access

Abstract

Over the last couple of years rapid thermal annealing (RTA) equipment suppliers have been aggressively developing lamp-based furnaces capable of achieving ramp-up rates on the order of hundreds of degrees per second. One of the driving forces for adopting such a strategy was the experimental demonstration of 30nm p-type junctions by employing a ramp-up rate of ≈400°C/s. It was subsequently proposed that the ultra-fast temperature ramp-up was suppressing transient enhanced diffusion (TED) of boron which results from the interaction of the implantation damage with the dopant. The capability to achieve very high temperature ramp-rates was thus embraced as an essential requirement of the next generation of RTA equipment.

In this paper, recent experimental data examining the effect of the ramp-up rate during spike-and soak-anneals on enhanced diffusion and shallow junction formation is reviewed. The advantage of increasing the ramp-up rate is found to be largest for the shallowest, 0.5-keV, B implants. At such ultra-low energies (ULE) the advantage arises from a reduction of the total thermal budget. Simulations reveal that a point of diminishing return is quickly reached when increasing the ramp-up rate since the ramp-down rate is in practice limited. At energies where TED dominates, a high ramp-up rate is only effective in minimizing diffusion if the implanted dose is sufficiently small so that the TED can be run out during the ramp-up portion of the anneal; for larger doses, a high ramp-up rate only serves to postpone the TED to the ramp-down duration of the anneal. However, even when TED is minimized at higher implant energies via high ramp-up rates, the advantage is unobservable due to the rather large as-implanted depth. It appears then that while spike anneals allow the activation of ULE-implanted dopants to be maximized while minimizing their diffusion the limitation imposed by the ramp-down rate compromises the advantage of very aggressive ramp-up rates.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

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

REFERENCES

[1] National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (Semiconductor Industry Association, San Jose, 1997).Google Scholar
[2] Fiory, A. T. and Bourdelle, K. K., Appl. Phys. Lett. 74, (1999); A. T. Fiory, K. K. Bourdelle, A. Agarwal, H.J. Gossmann, and C. S. Rafferty, these proceedings.Google Scholar
[3] Shishiguchi, S., Mineji, A., Hayashi, T., and Saito, S., VLSI Tech. Symp., 1059 (1997).Google Scholar
[4] Rafferty, C. S., Gilmer, G. H., Jaraiz, M., Eaglesham, D. J. and Gossmann, H.J., Appl. Phys. Lett. 68, 2395 (1996).Google Scholar
[5] Gossmann, H.J., in Semiconductor Silicon, ed. Huff, H.R., Goselle, U., and Tsuya, H., ECS Proc. Vol. 98-1, 884 (1998).Google Scholar
[6] Lim, D. R., Rafferty, C. S., and Klemens, F. P., Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 2302 (1995).Google Scholar
[7] Agarwal, A., Gossmann, H.J., Eaglesham, D. J., Pelaz, L., Herner, S. B., Jacobson, D. C., et al., IEDM Tech. Digest 97, 367 (1997).Google Scholar
[8] Agarwal, A., Gossmann, H.J., Eaglesham, D. J., Pelaz, L., Jacobson, D. C., Haynes, T. E., et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 3141 (1997).Google Scholar
[9] Agarwal, A., Fiory, A. T., Gossmann, H.J., Rafferty, C. S., Frisella, P., Hebb, J., Mater. Sci. in Semicond. Proc. 1, 237 (1999)Google Scholar
[10] Pinto, M. R., Boulin, D. M., Rafferty, C. S., Smith, R. K., et al, IEDM Tech. Dig. 92, 923 (1992).Google Scholar
[11] In all simulations of implanted dopant diffusion, the interaction of dopants with damage was included in the form of a “plus” number of interstitials which form clusters and dissolve (see Reference 12). No boron-interstitial clusters were included. Boron is active only up to its solid-solubility in silicon.Google Scholar
[12] Giles, M. D., J. Electrochem. Soc. 138, 138 (1991).Google Scholar
[13] Fair, R. B. and Tsai, J. C. C., J. Electrochem. Soc. 124, 1107 (1977).Google Scholar
[14] Bracht, H., Stolwijk, N. A., and Mehrer, H., Phys. Rev. B 52, 16542 (1995).Google Scholar
[15] Saito, S., presented at MRS Spring 1998 Meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
[16] Felch, S., presented at the Greater Silicon Valley Implant Users Group Meeting, Sunnyvale, February, 1999; D. Downey, et al., Solid State Technology, Dec 1997.Google Scholar
[17] Foad, M., et al., Solid State Technology, Dec 1998.Google Scholar