Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T18:52:59.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

(A)thermal migration of Ge during junction formation in s-Si layers grown on thin SiGebuffer layers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

W. Vandervorst ,
B.J. Pawlak ,
T. Janssens ,
B. Brijs ,
R. Delhougne ,
M. Caymax  and
R. Loo
W. Vandervorst
Affiliation:
IMEC, Kapeldreef 75, 3001 Leuven, Belgium, email: [email protected] also : INSYS, KULeuven, Belgium
B.J. Pawlak
Affiliation:
Philips Research Leuven, Kapeldreef 75, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
T. Janssens
Affiliation:
IMEC, Kapeldreef 75, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
B. Brijs
Affiliation:
IMEC, Kapeldreef 75, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
R. Delhougne
Affiliation:
IMEC, Kapeldreef 75, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
M. Caymax
Affiliation:
IMEC, Kapeldreef 75, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
R. Loo
Affiliation:
IMEC, Kapeldreef 75, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
Get access

Abstract

Solid phase epitaxial regrowth (SPER) has been proven to be highly advantageous for ultra shallow junction formation in advanced technologies. Application of SPER to strained Si/SiGe structures raises the concern that the Ge may out diffuse during the implantation and/or anneal steps and thus reduce the strain in the top silicon layer.

In the present studies we expose 8-30 nm strained silicon layers grown on thin relaxed SiGe-buffers, to implant conditions and anneal cycles, characteristic for formation of the junctions by solid phase epitaxial regrowth and conventional spike activation. The resulting Geredistribution is measured using SIMS. Based on the outdiffused Ge-profiles the Ge-diffusion coefficient has been determined in the temperature range of 800-1100C from which an activation energy of ∼ 3.6 eV can be deduced. Up to 1050 C, 10 min, even a 30 nm strained film remains highly stable and shows only very moderate outdiffusion.

We also have observed a far more efficient, athermal Ge-redistribution process linked to the implantation step itself. This was studied by analysing the Ge-redistribution following an Asimplant (2-15 keV, 5 1014 – 3 1015 at/cm2). It is shown that the energy of the implant species (or more specifically the position of the damage distribution function relative to the Ge-edge) plays a determining factor with respect to the Ge-migration. For implants whereby the damage distribution overlaps with the Ge-edge, a very efficient transport of the Ge is observed, even prior to any anneal cycle. The migration is entirely correlated with the collision cascade and the resulting (forward!) Ge-recoil distribution. The scaling with dose for a given energy links the observed Ge-profile with a broadening mechanism related to the number of atom displacements induced in the sample within the vicinity of the Si-SiGe-transition.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 809: Symposium B – High-Mobility Group-IV Materials and Devices , 2004 , B9.5.1/C9.5
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. Loo, R., Delhougne, R., Meunier-Beillard, P., Caymax, M., Verheyen, P., Eneman, G., Wolf, De, Janssens, T., Benedetti, A., Meyer, K. De, Vandervorst, W., and Heyns, M., these proceedingsGoogle Scholar
2. Sugii, N., J. Appl. Phys 89, (2001), 6459 Google Scholar
3. Crank, J., Mathematics of diffusion (Oxford University Press, 1956)Google Scholar
4. LeGoues, F.K., Meyerson, B.S. and Morar, J.F., Phys. Rev. lett 66,(1991), 2903 Google Scholar
5. Ogino, M., Oana, Y. and Watanabe, M., Phys. Status Solidi A 72,(1982), 535 Google Scholar
6. Dorner, P., Gust, W., Predel, B., Roll, U., Lodding, A. and Odelius, H., Philos. Amg. A49, (1984), 557 Google Scholar
7. Prokes, S.M., Glembocki, O.J. and Godbey, D.J., Appl. Phys. Lett 60, (1992), 1087 Google Scholar
8. Hettich, G., Mehrer, H. and Maier, K., Int. Conf on Defect and Radiation Effects in Semicond., Nice, France (1978).Google Scholar
9. Zangenberg, N.R., Hansen, J. Lundsgaard, Fage-Pedersen, J. and Larsen, A. Nylandsted, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, (2001),125901 Google Scholar
10. Cowern, N., Zalm, P.C., Sluis, P. van der, Graventsteijn, D.J. and Boer, W.B. de, Phys. Rev.Lett 72, (1994), 2585 Google Scholar
11. Pawlak, B.J., Vandervorst, W., Lindsay, R., Wolf, I. de, Roozeboom, F., Delhougne, R., Benedetti, A., Loo, R., Caymax, M., Maex, K. these proceedingsGoogle Scholar
12. Littmark, U., Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research, Section B vol.B7–8, (1985), 684–93, March 1985Google Scholar