Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T01:18:19.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Damage Accumulation Models for Boron Implantation in Silicon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

A. Simionescu  and
G. Hobler
A. Simionescu
Affiliation:
Institut für Festkörperelektronik, University of Technology Vienna Gußhausstraße 25-29/362, A-1040 Vienna, Austria.
G. Hobler
Affiliation:
Institut für Festkörperelektronik, University of Technology Vienna Gußhausstraße 25-29/362, A-1040 Vienna, Austria.
Get access

Abstract

Two models of damage accumulation during boron implantation are compared: The first one analyzes the full collision cascades and lets vacancies and interstitials recombine, if they are located within some capture radius of each other. The second one uses a constant fraction of defects surviving damage annihilation within a recoil cascade and a damage saturation density to take into account recombination with defects generated in previous cascades. While the first model is more fundamental, the second one is computationally more efficient. By comparing model predictions with 20 keV boron implantations at various doses, performed into (100) and (110) silicon with 7° and 0°, respectively, we conclude that different capture radii have to be used for damage annihilation within the recoil cascades and with defects generated in previous cascades. Moreover, we show that the two models are almost equivalent, if appropriate parameters are chosen. Recombination factors determined from simulations using a capture radius are almost independent of depth and implantation energy.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 389: Symposium R – Modedling and Simulation of Thin-Film Processing , 1995 , 221
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 Saito, T., Yamakawa, H., Komiya, S., Kang, H. J., and Shimizu, R., Nucl. Instr. Meth. B 21, 456, 1987.Google Scholar
2 Crandle, T. L. and Mulvaney, B. J., IEEE Electron Dev. Lett. 11, 42, 1990.Google Scholar
3 Klein, K. M., Park, C., and Tasch, A. F., Nucl. Instr. Meth. B 59/60, 60, 1991.Google Scholar
4 Jaraiz, M., Arias, J., Bailon, L. A., and Barbolla, J. J., Vacuum 44, 321–323, 1993.Google Scholar
5 Posselt, M., Rad. Eff. Def. Sol. 130–131, 87, 1994.Google Scholar
6 Posselt, M., Nucl. Instr. Meth. B 96, 163, 1995.Google Scholar
7 Hobler, G., Simionescu, A., Palmetshofer, L., Tian, C., and Stingeder, G., J. Appl. Phys. 77 (8), 1995. (in press).Google Scholar
8 Klein, K. M., PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 1991.Google Scholar
9 Hobler, G., Nucl. Instr. Meth. B 96, 155, 1995.Google Scholar
10 Hobler, G., Simionescu, A., Palmetshofer, L., Jahnel, F., Criegern, R. von, Tian, C., and Stingeder, G., In Proc. 3rd Intl. Workshop on the Measurement and Characterization of Ultra-Shallow Doping Profiles in Semiconductors, 1995.Google Scholar
11 Norgett, M. J., Robinson, M. T., and Torrens, I. M., Nucl. Eng. Des. 33, 50, 1975.Google Scholar