Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T04:22:17.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Point Defect Properties from Metal Diffusion Experiments — What Does the Data Really Tell Us?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Srinivasan Chakravarthit
Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215.
Scott T. Dunham
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215.
Get access


Point defect properties, including diffusivities and equilibrium concentrations for both interstitials and vacancies, are commonly extracted from metal diffusion experiments, and these values are widely used in process simulation software. However, in many cases, these parameter values were extracted using oversimplified models which ignore interactions between interstitial and vacancy diffusion mechanisms. Questions about the accuracy of these parameters have come from ab-initio defect calculations which conclude that vacancies diffuse faster than interstitials, in contrast with published reports on metal diffusion which find vacancies diffuse much more slowly than interstitials. We have reanalyzed published data for zinc and platinum diffusion and find that it is possible to match all of the data using fast vacancy diffusivity. The most direct evidence for slow vacancy diffusion (and a high equilibrium concentration) comes from platinum diffusion experiments. However, we are able to reproduce these results with fast V diffusion and carbon/interstitial clustering, using carbon concentrations typical of Czochralski and float zone silicon (1016cm−3). We evaluate the effectiveness of metal diffusion experiments in determining point defect parameters, and find that it is not possible to reliably determine both diffusivities and equilibrium concentrations for both interstitials and vacancies from metal diffusion results.

Research Article
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

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.)


1 Fahey, P., Griffin, P. B., and Plummer, J. D., Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 289 (1989).Google Scholar
2 Bracht, H., Stolwijk, N. A., and Mehrer, H., Phys. Rev. B 52, 16542 (1995).Google Scholar
3 Zimmermann, H. and Ryssel, H., J. Electrochem. Soc. 139, 256 (1992).Google Scholar
4 Gösele, U., Plöβl, A., and Tan, T. Y., Electrochemical Soc. Proc. 96–4, 309 (1996).Google Scholar
5 Stolk, P. A., Gossmann, H. J., Eaglesham, D. J., Jacobson, D. G., Luftman, H. S., and Poate, J. M., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 354, 307 (1995).Google Scholar
6 Mathiot, D., Phys. Rev. B 45, 13345 (1992).Google Scholar
7 Bracht, H., Stolwijk, N. A., Yonenaga, I., and Mehrer, H., Phys. Status Solidi A 137, 499 (1993).Google Scholar
8 Lerch, W., Stolwijk, N. A., Mehrer, H., and Poisson, Ch., Semicon. Sci. Technol. 10, 1257 (1995).Google Scholar
9 Zimmermann, H. and Ryssel, H., Appl. Phys. Lett. 59, 1209 (1991).Google Scholar
10 Zimmermann, H. and Ryssel, H., Phys. Rev. B 44, 9064 (1991).Google Scholar
11 Zimmermann, H., Appl. Phys. Lett. 59, 3134 (1991).Google Scholar
12 Clejan, I. and Dunham, S. T., Electrochemical Soc. Proc. 96–4, 398 (1996).Google Scholar