Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T21:59:59.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparative Study of Dose Loss and Diffusion for B11 and BF2 Implants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Reza Kasnavi ,
Peter B. Griffin  and
James D. Plummer
Reza Kasnavi
Affiliation:
Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 95025-4077, U.S.A
Peter B. Griffin
Affiliation:
Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 95025-4077, U.S.A
James D. Plummer
Affiliation:
Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 95025-4077, U.S.A
Get access

Abstract

We have studied dose loss for B11 and BF2 implants with energies ranging from 10 keV to 1keV for B11 and 45 keV to 2keV for BF2. We found that B11 implants during a 1050C-10s RTA anneal segregate mainly to the bulk of the oxide. High dose BF2 implants on the other hand, show significantly larger amounts of dose loss after stripping the oxide, due to a pile-up of boron at the Si/SiO2 interface. In order to simulate B11 diffusion we have introduced a simple average cluster size model to simulate Boron-Interstitial-Cluster (BIC) evolution. For BF2 implants, we have simulated the effect of F by reducing the damage and we have used interface traps to account for the dose loss observed experimentally. Using these models, we have been able to fit the SIMS profiles across the whole matrix of implant conditions for both B11 and BF2 implants.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 610: Symposium B – Si Front End Processing - Physics & Technology..II , 2000 , B4.3
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

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. Vuong, H.-H., Rafferty, C. S., Mansfield, W., Luftman, H., Jacobson, D., Pinto, M. R., Eshraghi, S. A., McMacken, J. R., and Ham, T. E., International Electron Device Meeting Technical Digest (IEDM '96), San Francisco, CA, 807 (1996)Google Scholar
2. Downey, D. F., Marcus, S. D., and Chow, J. W., Journal of Electronic Mater., 27, 1296 (1998)10.1007/s11664-998-0089-0Google Scholar
3. Downey, D. F., Chow, J. W., Ishida, E., and Jones, K. S., Appl. Phys. Lett., 73, 1263 (1998)10.1063/1.122146Google Scholar
4. Pelaz, L., Venezia, V. C., Gossmann, H.-J., Gilmer, G. H., Fiory, A. T., Rafferty, C. S., jaraiz, M., Barbolla, J., Appl. Phys. Lett., 75, 662 (1999)10.1063/1.124474Google Scholar
5.TSUPREM-4 User's Manual, Avanti Corp. (1999)Google Scholar
6. Jones, K. S., Liu, J., Zhang, L., Electrochem. Soc. Proc., 96, 116 (1996)Google Scholar
7. Sato, Y, Ehara, K., and Saito, K., J. Electrochem. Soc., 136, 1777 (1989)10.1149/1.2097011Google Scholar