Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-31T13:11:27.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Process-Induced Point Defects in Oxidized Silicon Structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

P. J. Caplan ,
E. H. Poindexter ,
P. K. Vasudev  and
R. C. Henderson
P. J. Caplan
Affiliation:
Electronics Technology and Devices Laboratory, Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703
E. H. Poindexter
Affiliation:
Electronics Technology and Devices Laboratory, Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703
P. K. Vasudev
Affiliation:
Hughes Research Laboratories, Malibu, CA 90265
R. C. Henderson
Affiliation:
Hughes Research Laboratories, Malibu, CA 90265
Get access

Abstract

Point defects caused by common fabrication methods may increase device susceptibility to radiation or hot carriers. In this study, defects induced by dry and wet oxidation, ion implantation, and rapid thermal annealing are examined by electron paramagnetic resonance. A brief 02 anneal at 900°C is found to be more effective than N2 in transformation of a steam-grown oxide interface to that of a dry oxide. A N2 anneal at 450 °C has little effect, and must be extended to about 2 hr to dessicate the interface. Implants of B, P, and BF2 have no direct effect on the interface, but activation anneal in N2 at 900°C produced large Pb concentration. Implant generates E′ centers in the oxide, which are eliminated by the activation. Rapid thermal annealing below 600°C reduces interface traps, but increases them above 700°C, with severe oxide and interface damage at 1100 °C. Electron-beam lithography and plasma- or ion-beam etching are discussed briefly.

Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 76: Symposium C – Science and Technology of Microfabrication , 1986 , 241
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1987

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 Poindexter, E. H. and Caplan, P. J., Electrochemical Society Extended Abstracts, 168th Meeting, October 1985, p. 311.Google Scholar
2 Chen, J. Y., Henderson, R. C., Patterson, D. O., and Martin, R., IEEE Electron Device Lett. 3, 13 (1982).Google Scholar
3 Poindexter, E. H., Gerardi, G. J., Rueckel, M.-E., Caplan, P. J., Johnson, N. M., and Biegelsen, D. K., J. Appl. Phys. 56, 2844 (1984).Google Scholar
4 Lenahan, P. M. and Dressendorfer, P. V., J. Appl. Phys. 55, 3495 (1984).Google Scholar
5 Feigl, F. J., Young, D. R., DiMaria, D. J., Lai, S., and Calise, J., J. Appl. Phys. 52, 5665 (1981).Google Scholar
6 Poindexter, E.-H. and Caplan, P. J., Prog. Surf. Sci. 14 201 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Razouk, R. R. and Deal, B. E., J. Electrochem. Soc. 126, 1573 (1979).Google Scholar
8 Devine, R. A. B. and Golanski, A., J. Appl. Phys. 55 2738 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Vikhrev, B. I.. Gerasimenko, N. N., and Lebe-dev, G. P., Soviet Microelectronics 6, 52 (1977).Google Scholar
10 Singh, R., Fonash, S. J., Caplan, P. J., and Poindexter, E. H., Appl. Phys. Lett. 43, 502 (1983).Google Scholar