Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:24:48.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Implanted Phosphorus Dose and Anneal on Dopant Diffusion and Activation in Germanium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Vincent Mazzocchi ,
Stéphane Koffel ,
Cyrille Le Royer ,
Pascal Scheiblin ,
Jean-Paul Barnes  and
Marco Hopstaken
Vincent Mazzocchi
Affiliation:
[email protected], cea-leti-minatec, Operation Department, 17 rue des Martyrs, Grenoble, 380054, France
Stéphane Koffel
Affiliation:
[email protected], CEA-LETI MINATEC, 17 rue des Martyrs, Grenoble, 38054, France
Cyrille Le Royer
Affiliation:
cyrille.leroyer@ cea.fr, CEA-LETI MINATEC, 17 rue des Martyrs, Grenoble, 38054, France
Pascal Scheiblin
Affiliation:
[email protected], CEA-LETI MINATEC, 17 rue des Martyrs, Grenoble, 38054, France
Jean-Paul Barnes
Affiliation:
[email protected], CEA-LETI MINATEC, 17 rue des Martyrs, Grenoble, 38054, France
Marco Hopstaken
Affiliation:
[email protected], CEA-LETI MINATEC, 17 rue des Martyrs, Grenoble, 38054, France
Get access

Abstract

Germanium has regained attention in the semiconductor industry for MOSFET application because of the higher mobility of carriers – two times higher mobility for electrons and four times for holes – as compared to silicon. In the opposite of the Silicon, the major issue with Germanium is to limit the n-dopant diffusion. Usual n-dopants (Phosphorus and Arsenic for example) are not electrically activated at an acceptable level without a large diffusion of the doping profile and a substantial dose loss. In this work, we have studied the influence of low energy and dose implant (15KeV to 40KeV @ 8E13 to 1E15at.cm−2) and low temperature anneal (515°C to 600°C) on diffusion, exodiffusion and activation of the phosphorus dopant into Germanium. The annealing steps were made in RTP furnace, the chemical profile and electrically active profiles were extracted by using Secondary-Ion-Mass Spectroscopy (SIMS) and sheet resistance measurement (Rs). To investigate the implantation-induced defects in depth, cross-sectional micrographs were made by using Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). Experimental results show that we achieved an efficient activation level by tuning both dose implant and anneal temperature, limiting the exodiffusion with pratically no diffusion of the dopant. We also show that very abrupt profile can be achieved with appropriate implant and thermal annealing conditions. To limit the leakage current in devices, we suppose we have to limit the defects generated during the implantation. Specially for dopant activation temperature anneal below 550°C, we have shown and observed by cross-sectional micrograph that the defects are totally removed by addition of a pre step of annealing at 400°C.

Keywords

GePdiffusion
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1070: Symposium E – Doping Engineering for Front-End Processing , 2008 , 1070-E01-08
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

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. Pouydebasque, A., Royer, C. Le, Tabone, C., Romanjek, K., Augendre, E., Sanchez, L., Hartmann, J.-M., Grampeix, H., Mazzocchi, V., Soliveres, S., Truche, R., Clavelier, L., and Deleonibus, S., VLSI TSA 2008 (accepted).Google Scholar
2. Shang, H., Frank, MM., Gusev, E. P., Chu, J. O., Bedell, S. W., Guarini, K. W., Leong, M., IBM J. Res. & Dev. Vol. 50 N°4/5, (2006).Google Scholar
3. Sze, S.M., Ng, K.K., “Physics of Semiconductor devices – Third edition”, ed. Wiley Interscience, p.30 (2007).Google Scholar
4. Simoen, E, Satta, A., D'Amore, A., Janssens, T., Clarysse, T., Martens, K., Jeager, B. De, Benedetti, A., Hflijk, I., Brijs, B., Meuris, M. and Vandervorst, W., MSSP edited by Elsevier 2006, pp.634–639.Google Scholar
5. Trumbore, F. A., Electrical Society, (1959) 205–233.Google Scholar
6. Hartmann, J.M., Damlencourt, J-F., Bogumilowicz, Y., Holliger, P., Rolland, G., Billon, T., J. of Crystal Growth 274, 90–99 (2005).Google Scholar
7. Satta, A., Janssens, T., Clarysse, T., Simoen, E., Meuris, M., Benedetti, A., Hoflijk, I., Jeager, B. De, Demeurisse, C. and Vandervorst, W., J. Vac Sci Tech B, (2006) 24(1).Google Scholar
8. Koffel, S., Scheiblin, P., Mazzocchi, V., E-MRS spring 2008 (accepted)Google Scholar
9. Hutin, L., Koffel, S., Royer, C. Le, Scheiblin, P., Mazzocchi, V., Deleonibus, S., EuroSOI Proc., p111–112 (2008).Google Scholar
10. Fistul, V. I, Iglitsyn, M. I., Omelyanovskii, E. M., Soc. Phys. Solid State 4, 4 (1962).Google Scholar
11. Clarysse, T., Eyben, P., Janssens, T., Hoflijk, I., Vanhaeren, D., Satta, A., Meuris, M., Vandervorst, W., Bogdanowicz, J., Raskin, G., J. Vac. Sci. Tech. B. 24 (1), 381 (2006).Google Scholar
12. Koffel, S., Claverie, A., BenAssayag, G., Scheiblin, P., Mat. Sc. Semi. Proc. 9, 664–667 (2006).Google Scholar