Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:36:05.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nonhydrostatic Stress Effects on Boron Diffusion in SI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Michael J. Aziz
Michael J. Aziz*
Affiliation:
Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
Get access

Abstract

The thermodynamics of diffusion under hydrostatic pressure and nonhydrostatic stress is developed for single crystals free of extended defects and is applied to the case of boron diffusion in silicon. The thermodynamic relationships obtained permit the direct comparison of hydrostatic and biaxial stress experiments and of atomistic calculations under hydrostatic stress. Assuming various values for the anisotropy in the migration strain, a currently unknown parameter, comparison is made between various measurements under hydrostatic pressure and nonhydrostatic stress, and various atomistic calculations of the volumetrics of B and Si diffusion by an interstitial-based mechanism. An independent determination of the anisotropy of the migration strain would permit a parameter-free determination of the predominant diffusion mechanism and would permit the prediction of the ratio of the diffusivity normal to the free surface to the diffusivity parallel to the surface for biaxially strained films. Procedures for measuring and calculating the anisotropy in the migration strain are described.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 469: Symposium E – Defects and Diffusion in Silicon Processing , 1997 , 37
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

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 Fahey, P.M., Griffin, P.B. and Plummer, J.D., Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 289 (1989).Google Scholar
2 Zhao, Y., Aziz, M.J., Mitha, S. and Schiferl, D., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 442, 305 (1997).Google Scholar
3 Aziz, M.J., Appl. Phys. Lett. 70, 2810 (1997).Google Scholar
4 Larché, F.C. and Cahn, J.W., Acta Metall. 33, 331 (1985).Google Scholar
5 Spencer, B.J., Voorhees, P.W. and Davis, S.H., J. Appl. Phys. 73, 4955 (1993).Google Scholar
6 Dederichs, P.H. and Schroeder, K., Phys. Rev. B 17, 2524 (1978).Google Scholar
7 Aziz, M.J., Sabin, P.C. and Lu, G.-Q., Phys. Rev. B 44, 9812 (1991).Google Scholar
8 Antonelli, A. and Bernholc, J., Phys. Rev. B 40, 10643 (1989).Google Scholar
9 Tang, M., Colombo, L., Zhu, J. and Diaz de la Rubia, T., Phys. Rev. B 55, 14279 (1997).Google Scholar
10 Kuo, P., Hoyt, J.L., Gibbons, J.F., Turner, J.E. and Lefforge, D., Appl. Phys. Lett. 66, 580 (1995).Google Scholar
11 Cowern, N.E.B., Kersten, W.J., de Kruif, R.C.M., van Berkum, J.G.M., de Boer, W.B., Gravesteijn, D.J. and Bulle-Liewma, C.W.T., in Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Process Physics and Modeling in Semiconductor Devices, eds. Srinivasan, G.R., Murthy, C.S., and Dunham, S.T., Electrochem. Soc. Proc. Vol. 96–4 (Electrochem. Soc., Pennington, NJ, 1996).Google Scholar