Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T06:46:40.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Impact of Buffered Layer Growth Conditions on Grown-In Vacancy Concentrations in Molecular Beam Epitaxy Silicon Germanium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Kareem M. Shoukri
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Toyama University, 3190-Gofuku, Toyama 930-8555, Japan
Yaser M. Haddara
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Toyama University, 3190-Gofuku, Toyama 930-8555, Japan
Andrew P. Knights
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering Physics Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Toyama University, 3190-Gofuku, Toyama 930-8555, Japan
Paul G. Coleman
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada Department of Physics, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, United Kingdom
Mohammad M. Rahman
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Toyama University, 3190-Gofuku, Toyama 930-8555, Japan
C.C. Tatsuyama
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Toyama University, 3190-Gofuku, Toyama 930-8555, Japan
Get access

Abstract

Silicon-Germanium (SiGe) has become increasingly attractive to semiconductor manufacturers over the last decade for use in high performance devices. In order to produce thin layers of device grade SiGe with low concentrations of point defects and well-controlled doping profiles, advanced growth and deposition techniques such as molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) are used. One of the key issues in modeling dopant diffusion during subsequent processing is the concentration of grown-in point defects. The incorporation of vacancy clusters and vacancy point defects in 200nm SiGe/Si layers grown by molecular beam epitaxy over different buffer layers has been observed using beam-based positron annihilation spectroscopy. Variables included the type of buffer layer, the growth temperature and growth rate for the buffer, and the growth temperature and growth rate for the top layer. Different growth conditions resulted in different relaxation amounts in the top layer, but in all samples the dislocation density was below 106 cm−2. Preliminary results indicate a correlation between the size, type and concentration of vacancy defects and the buffer layer growth temperature. At high buffer layer growth temperature of 500°C the vacancy point defect concentration is below the PAS detectable limit of approximately 1015 cm−3. As the buffer layer growth is decreased to a minimum value of 300°C, large vacancy clusters are observed in the buffered layer and vacancy point defects are observed in the SiGe film. These results are relevant to the role played by point defects grown-in at temperatures below ∼350°C in modeling dopant diffusion during processing.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

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. Fitzgerald, E.A., Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 25, 417 (1995).Google Scholar
2. Rahman, MM., H, Matada, Tambo, T., and Tatsuyama, C., J. Appl. Phys. 90, 202, (2001).Google Scholar
3. Rahman, M.M., Tambo, T., and Tatsuyama, C., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 765, 193 (2002).Google Scholar
4. Fahey, P.M., Griffin, P.B., and Plummer, J.D.. Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 289 (1989).Google Scholar
5. Knights, A.P., and Coleman, P.G.. Defect and Diffusion Forum Vols. 183–185, 41 (2000).Google Scholar
6. Grasby, T.J. et al. , Appl. Phys. Lett. 74, 1848 (1999).Google Scholar
7. Knights, A.P. et al. , J. Appl. Phys. 89, 76 (2001).Google Scholar
8. Obata, T., Kameda, K., Tambo, T., and Tatsuyama, C., J. Appl. Phys. 81, 199 (1997).Google Scholar
9. Aers, G.C., in “Positron Beams for Solids and Surfaces”, edited by Schultz, P.J., Massoumi, G.R., Simpson, P.J., AIP Conf. Proc. 218 162 (1990).Google Scholar
10. Coleman, P.G., Knights, A.P., and Gwilliam, R.M., J. Appl. Phys. 86, 5988 (1990)Google Scholar