Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T09:11:16.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Atomistic Simulations of Effect of Coulombic Interactions on Carrier Fluctuations in Doped Silicon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Zudian Qin  and
Scott T. Dunham
Zudian Qin
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Department of Electrical Engineering, Seattle WA 98195, U.S.A.
Scott T. Dunham
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Department of Electrical Engineering, Seattle WA 98195, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

Carrier distributions associated with point charges in silicon solved with quantum perturbation theory are used to determine Coulombic interactions between charged defects in the presence of carrier screening. The resulting interactions are used in kinetic lattice Monte Carlo (KLMC) simulations of point defect-mediated diffusion to study dopant redistribution and associated variations in carrier concentration. Over a broad range of doping concentrations and temperatures, Coulombic repulsion between like dopants leads to ordering, resulting in a more uniform electrical potential distribution and therefore reduced variations in device performance compared with random doping, the standard condition assumed in previous doping fluctuation analyses.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 765: Symposium D – CMOS Front-End Materials and Process Technology , 2003 , D5.7
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2003

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. Hoeneisen, B. and Mead, C. A., Solid-State Electron. 15, 819 (1972).Google Scholar
2. Keyes, R. W., Proc. IEEE 63, 740 (1975).Google Scholar
3. Mizuno, T., Okamura, J., and Toriumi, A., IEEE Trans. Electron Dev. 41, 2216 (1994).Google Scholar
4. Asenov, A., Slavcheva, G., Brown, A. R., Davies, J. H., and Saini, S., IEEE Trans. Electron Dev. 48, 722 (2001).Google Scholar
5. Sano, N. and Tomizawa, M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 2267 (2001).Google Scholar
6. Mayergoyz, I. D. and Andrei, P., J. Appl. Phys. 90, 3019 (2001).Google Scholar
7. Yasuda, Y., Takamiya, M., and Hiramoto, T., IEEE Trans. Electron Dev. 47, 1838 (2000).Google Scholar
8. Tang, X., De, V. K., and Meindl, J. D., IEEE Trans. VLSI Systems 5, 369 (1997).Google Scholar
9. Dunham, S. T. and Wu, C. D., J. Appl. Phys. 78, 2362 (1995).Google Scholar
10. Bunea, M.M. and Dunham, S.T., in Semiconductor Process and Device Performance Modeling, MRS Proc. 490, edited by Dunham, S. T. and Nelson, J. (Pittsburgh, 1998), p. 3–8.Google Scholar
11. Qinand, Z. Dunham, S. T., MRS Proc. 717, C3.8 (2002).Google Scholar
12. International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS): Executive Summary (2001), p. 38, Table 1f.Google Scholar