Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T11:32:06.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correlation of Roughness and Device Properties for Hydrogen Plasma Cleaning of Si(100) Prior to Gate Oxidation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

J. S. Montgomery ,
J. P. Barnak ,
C. Silvestre ,
J. R. Hauser  and
R. J. Nemanich
J. S. Montgomery
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Electronic Materials Processing North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
J. P. Barnak
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Electronic Materials Processing North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
C. Silvestre
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Electronic Materials Processing North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
J. R. Hauser
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Electronic Materials Processing North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
R. J. Nemanich
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Electronic Materials Processing North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Get access

Abstract

Hydrogen plasma treatment was used as a cleaning and conditioning step prior to gate oxide deposition in the fabrication of cluster-based MOS field effect transistors. Surface roughness was measured by atomic force microscopy and compared to current-voltage characteristics of the MOSFET devices. The MOSFET devices were evaluated on the basis of threshold voltage, peak mobility, interface scattering, and surface roughness coefficient. Following a 10 minute Hplasma exposure at a substrate temperature of 150°C the rms roughness increased from 1.1±0.3 Å to 17±9 Å. The rms roughness for samples treated for 10 minutes at 700°C was 4±1 Å. Analysis of the MOSFET devices treated in the low temperature range (200°C) show significant degradation due to the H-plasma interaction. Threshold voltage for the devices exposed to a 2 minute H-plasma at a temperature of 200°C was 0.72±0.02 V. In contrast the threshold voltage for the 600°C, 2 minute plasma exposure was 0.86±0.03 V. The peak mobility for those devices was 370 cm2/V-s. Further device analysis was accomplished from the current-voltage measurements to extract a value of interface scattering and surface roughness scattering for each device. Interface scattering and surface roughness scattering do not increase for H-plasma process temperatures of 450 – 700°C. An H-plasma treatment for 2 minutes at 500°C also resulted in no observable increase in rms roughness, a threshold voltage of 0.92±0.03 V, a peak mobility of 410 cm2/V-s, and no increase in interface scattering and surface roughness scattering.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 386: Symposium O – Ultraclean Semiconductor Processing Technology and Surface , 1995 , 279
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

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. Fair, R.B., Proc. IEEE, 78, 1687 (1990).Google Scholar
2. Iscoff, R., Semiconductor International, 16, 58 (1993).Google Scholar
3. Singer, P.H., Semiconductor International, 15, 36–39 (1992).Google Scholar
4. Ohmi, T., Proc. IEEE, 81, 716 (1993).Google Scholar
5. Hahn, P.O., Grundner, M., Schnegg, A. and Jacob, H., Appl. Surf. Sci., 39, 436 (1989).Google Scholar
6. Compton, R.D., Semiconductor International, 16, 11 (1993).Google Scholar
7. Hauser, J.R., Masnari, N.A. and Littlejohn, M.A. in Rapid Thermal Annealing/Chemical Vapor Deposition and Integrated Processing, edited by Hodul, D. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 146, Pittsburgh, PA, 1989) p. 15–26.Google Scholar
8. Masnari, N.A., Hauser, J.R., Lucovsky, G., Maher, D.M., Markunas, R.J., Ozturk, M.C. and Wortman, J.J., Proc. IEEE, 81, 42–58 (1993).Google Scholar
9. Singer, P., Semiconductor International, 16, 46–51 (1993).Google Scholar
10. Banerjee, S., Tasch, A., Hsu, T., Qian, R., Kinosky, K., Irby, J., Mahajan, A. and Thomas, S. in Chemical Surface Preparation, Passivation, and Cleaning for Semiconductor Growth and Processing, edited by Nemanich, R.J. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 259, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992) p. 43.Google Scholar
11. Schneider, T.P., Montgomery, J.S., Ying, H., Barnak, J.P., Chen, Y.L., Maher, D.M. and Nemanich, R.J., in Third International Symposium on Cleaning Technology in Semiconductor Device Manufacturing, edited by Ruzyllo, J. and Novak, R. (Electrochemical Society, New Orleans, 1993) p. 329–338.Google Scholar
12. Ueda, K., Appl. Surf. Sci., 60/61, 178 (1992).Google Scholar
13. Thomas, R.E., Mantini, M.J., Rudder, R.A., Malta, D.P., Hattengady, S.V. and Markunas, R.J., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, 10, 817 (1992).Google Scholar
14. Bayoumi, A. and Hauser, J.R., in Proceedings of the 2nd International RTP Conference, edited by Fair, R. and Logek, B. (RTP '94, Monterey, CA, 1994) p. 130.Google Scholar
15. Shin, H., Yeric, G.M., Tasch, A.F. and Mazair, C.M., Solid-State Electron., 34, 545–552 (1991).Google Scholar
16. Jeon, D.S. and Burk, D.E., IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, 36, 1456–1463 (1989).Google Scholar
17. Watt, J.T. and Plummer, J.D., Digital Technology Papers, 81 (1987).Google Scholar
18. Carter, R.J., Schneider, T.P., Montgomery, J.S. and Nemanich, R.J., J. Electrochem. Soc., 141, 3136 (1994).Google Scholar
19. Liu, H.X., Schneider, T.P., Montgomery, J.S., Chen, Y.L., Buczkowski, A., Shimura, F., Nemanich, R.J. and Maher, D.M. in Surface Chemical Cleaning and Passivation for Semiconductor Processing, edited by Higashi, G.S., Irene, E.A. and Ohmi, T. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 315, Pittsburgh, PA, 1993) p. 231.Google Scholar
20. Johnson, N.M., Ponce, F.A., Street, R.A. and Nemanich, R.J., Phys. Rev. B, 35, 4166 (1987).Google Scholar