Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T02:42:50.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Molecular Dynamics Study of Implant-Induced Erosion of A (100)-Silicon Stepped Surface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

A. M. Mazzone
A. M. Mazzone*
Affiliation:
C.N.R. LAMEL-via Gobetti 101, - Bologna-40129-Italy-mazzone@lamel.bo.cnr.it.
Get access

Abstract

The purpose of these simulations is to study the mechanisms leading to surface damage during low-energy implants. Therefore the bombarded surface has a realistic vicinal structure and contains one step edge, SA or SB. The damaging event is produced by an atom, Ar or Si, of a low kinetic energy (≤ 30eV), moving on the surface or below it. The simulation indicates a total etching of the first two layers of silicon and the ejection of the implanted Ar. These features are independent on the step structure, on the direction of motion of the moving atom and they hold over a broad range of temperatures. However. if Ar and Si move below this critical depth, they may remain in the lattice as interstitials. The preferred location of these defects is the tetrahedral location at the center of the hexagonal rings. In addition to the formation of interstitials, also a corrugation of the atomic rows on the surface is observed. This effect has a characteristic dependence on the step structure and it is remarkably more pronounced for the SB non-rebonded steps than in the other cases.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 585: Symposium L – Fundamental Mechanisms of Low-Energy-Beam Modified Surface , 1999 , 191
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. Erlebacher, J., Aziz, M. J., Chason, E., Sinclair, M. B., and Floro, J. A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2330(1999).Google Scholar
2. Rusponi, S., Costantini, G., Boragno, C., and Valbusa, U., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2735(1998).Google Scholar
3. Bradley, R. M. and Harper, J. M. E., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A6, 2390 (1988).Google Scholar
4. Cuerno, R. and Barabasi, A. L., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74,4746 (1995).Google Scholar
5. Mazzone, A.M., Nucl. Inst. and Methods 160, 38(2000).Google Scholar
6. Helmer, B. A. and Graves, D. B. J., J. Vac. Sci. Techol. A16, 3502 (1998).Google Scholar
7. Schmidt, M.W., Baldridge, K. K., Boatz, J. A., Elbert, S. T., Gordon, M. S., Jensen, J. H., Koseki, S., Matsunaga, N., Nguyen, K. A., Su, S., Windus, T. L., Dupuis, M., Montgomery, J. A. Jr, J. Comput. Chem. 14, 1347(1993).Google Scholar
8. Abraham, F. F. and Batra, I. P., Surface Science Lett. L72, 135 (1985).Google Scholar
9. Poon, T. W., Yip, S., Ho, P. S., and Abraham, F. F., Phys.Rev.Lett. 65, 2160(1990).Google Scholar