© 2000 by prentice hall upper saddle river nj ion implantation - chapter 8 basic concepts ion...

© 2000 by Prentice HallUpper Saddle River NJ

ION IMPLANTATION - Chapter 8Basic Concepts

• Ion implantation is the dominant method of doping used today. In spite of creating enormous lattice damage it is favored because:

• Large range of doses - 1011 to 1016 /cm2 • Extremely accurate dose control • Essential for MOS VT control• Buried (retrograde) profiles are possible• Low temperature process• Wide choice of masking materials

V

V

Ionsource

Analyzing magnet

Pump

Resolvingaperature

Accelerator

Focus

Neutralbeam gate

Neutraltrap X & Y

scanplates

Wafer

Faraday cup

Q0-30keV

0-200keV• There are also some significant disadvantages:

• Damage to crystal.• Anomalous transiently enhanced diffusion (TED). upon annealing this damage.• Charging of insulating layers.


A. Implant ProfilesRange

R

Projected range

RP

Vacuum Silicon

.

1021

1020

1017

1019

1018

Concentration (cm-3)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Depth (µm)

SbAs P

B

0.606 CPΔRP

RP

• At its heart ion implantation is a random process.• High energy ions (1-1000keV) bombard the substrate and lose energy through nuclear collisions and electronic drag forces.

• Profiles can often be described by a Gaussian distribution, with a projected range and standard deviation. (200keV implants shown.)

€

C(x)=CP exp−x−RP( )

2

2ΔRP2

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟ ⎟

€

Q = C x( )−∞

∞∫ dx

€

Q = 2π ΔRP CP

(1)

(2)or

where Q is the dose in ions cm-2 and is measured by the integrated beam current.

Heavy atoms have smaller projected range and smaller spread = struggle ΔRp

Doses 1*1012 cm-2 to 1*1016 cm-2 used in MOS ICs


.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0 40 80 120 160 200

Depth (µm)

Energy (keV)

B

P

Sb

As

.

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0 40 80 120 160 200

Standard Deviation (µm)

Energy (keV)

B

P

Sb

As

Phos As Sb BoronEnergy(keV)

Range(µm)

Std Dev(µm)

Range(µm)

Std Dev(µm)

Range(µm)

Std Dev(µm)

Range(µm)

Std Dev(µm)

10 0.0199 0.0064 0.0084 0.0043 0.0121 0.0058 0.0473 0.024920 0.0342 0.0125 0.0156 0.0075 0.0219 0.0100 0.0826 0.038430 0.0473 0.0179 0.0226 0.0102 0.0306 0.0133 0.114 0.048340 0.0598 0.0229 0.0294 0.0128 0.0385 0.0162 0.143 0.056250 0.0717 0.0275 0.0362 0.0152 0.0459 0.0187 0.171 0.062860 0.0833 0.0317 0.0429 0.0176 0.0528 0.0209 0.198 0.068570 0.0947 0.0356 0.0495 0.0198 0.0594 0.0229 0.223 0.073680 0.105 0.0393 0.0561 0.0220 0.0656 0.0248 0.248 0.078090 0.116 0.0428 0.0626 0.0241 0.0716 0.0265 0.272 0.0821

100 0.127 0.0461 0.0692 0.0261 0.0773 0.0280 0.296 0.0857120 0.148 0.0522 0.0821 0.0301 0.0883 0.0309 0.341 0.0922140 0.169 0.0579 0.0950 0.0339 0.0985 0.0334 0.385 0.0978160 0.189 0.0630 0.107 0.0375 0.108 0.0357 0.428 0.102180 0.210 0.0678 0.120 0.0411 0.117 0.0378 0.469 0.107200 0.229 0.0723 0.133 0.0446 0.126 0.0397 0.509 0.110

Ranges and standard deviation ∆Rp of dopants in randomly oriented silicon.

Energy Dependence

Rp and ΔRp for dopants in Si.


ImplantBeam

x

y

z

80

40

0

-40

050

-100-50

040

80120

zBeam direction

80

40

0

-40

y

050100 -100-50

y

-40

0

40

80

xSide view

0 40 80 120

• Monte Carlo simulations of the random trajectories of a group of ions implanted at a spot on the wafer show the 3-D spatial distribution of the ions. (1000 phosphorus ions at 35 keV.)• Side view (below) shows Rp and ∆Rp while the beam direction view shows the lateral straggle.

Rp =50 nm, ΔRp =20 nm

Lateral struggle ΔR|

3D Distribution of P Implanted to Si


• The two-dimensional distribution is often assumed to be composed of just the product of the vertical and lateral distributions.

€

C x,y( ) =Cvert x( )exp− y2

2ΔR⊥2

⎛

⎝ ⎜ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟ ⎟

(3)

• Now consider what happens at a mask edge - if the mask is thick enough to block the implant, the lateral profile under the mask is determined by the lateral straggle. (35keV and 120keV As implants at the edge of a poly gate from Alvis et al.)

(Reprinted with permission of J. Vac. Science and Technology.)

• The description of the profile at the mask edge is given by a sum of point response Gaussian functions, which leads to an error function distribution under the mask. (See class notes on diffusion for a similar analysis.)

Lateral Implantation - Consequences for Devices


B. Masking Implants

.

CP*

RP*

Depth

xm

C*(xm)CB

Concentration

• How thick does a mask have to be?

• For masking,

€

C* xm( ) =CP* exp −

xm −RP*

( )2

2ΔRP* 2

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎜ ⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟ ⎟ ⎟≤CB

(4)

• Calculating the required mask thickness,

€

xm =RP* +ΔRP

* 2 lnCP*

CB

⎛

⎝ ⎜ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟ ⎟=RP

* +mΔRP*

(5)

• The dose that penetrates the mask is given by

€

QP = Q

2πΔRP*

exp− x−RP*

2ΔRP*

⎡

⎣ ⎢ ⎢

⎤

⎦ ⎥ ⎥xm

∞∫

2

dx=Q2

erfcxm −RP

*

2 ΔRP*

⎛

⎝ ⎜ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟ ⎟ (6)

Dose that penetrates the mask

Depends on mask material

Lateral struggle important in small devices

Masking Layer in Ion ImplantationPhotoresist,

oxide mask Lateral struggle important in small devices

€

C x, y( ) = Cvert x( )exp −y 2

2ΔR⊥2

⎛

⎝ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟

Dose that penetrates the mask

To stop ions:

€

R p* & ΔR p

* ( )are in the mask material different from Si

Ex: 2As ×1015cm−2@50 1keV to×1016cm−3 .doped channel

X poly? . to act as a mask

C Xm( ) =1×1016

€

@80keV&Xm=105nm → Qp = 2.7×1013cm−2

€

C* Xm( ) = Cp* exp

Xm − Rp*

2ΔRp* 2

⎛

⎝ ⎜ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟ ⎟

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟ ⎟≤ CB

€

→ xm=0.105μm=105nmPoly thickness

Masking Efficiency• Mask edges tapered – thickness not large enough

• Tilted implantation (“halo”) – use numerical calculations ( ex. to decrease short channel effects in small devices)

Shadowing effect rotate or implant at 0 Deg.

Implantation Followed by Annealing

Function rediffused

Annealing requires additional Dt terms added to C(x) Cp, depth , C(x) remains Gaussian.

Backscattering of light atoms. C(x) is Gaussian only near the peak.

€

ForΔR p = 2Dt .profiles are identical


C. Profile Evolution During Annealing

∆RP

Implanted

After Diffusion

2Dt

• Comparing Eqn. (1) with the Gaussian profile from the last set of notes, we see that ∆Rp is equivalent to . Thus

€

2Dt

€

C x ,t( ) =Q

2π ΔRP2 + 2Dt ⎛

⎝ ⎜ ⎞

⎠ ⎟exp−

x−RP( )2

2 ΔRP2 + 2Dt ⎛

⎝ ⎜ ⎞

⎠ ⎟

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎜ ⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟ ⎟ ⎟(7)

• The only other profile we can calculate analytically is when the implanted Gaussian is shallow enough that it can be treated as a delta function and the subsequent anneal can be treated as a one-sided Gaussian. (Recall example in Chapter 7 notes.)

Delta FunctionDose Q

(Initial Profile)

ImaginaryDelta Function

Dose Q

DiffusedGaussian

VirtualDiffusion

x0

€

C x ,t( ) =Q

πDtexp−

x2

4Dt

⎛

⎝ ⎜ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟ ⎟ (8)


.

1020

1019


1018

10170 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Depth (µm)

Antimony 360 keV

Boron38 keV

• Real implanted profiles are more complex.• Light ions backscatter to skew the profile up.• Heavy ions scatter deeper.

• 4 moment descriptions of these profiles are often used (with tabulated values for these moments).

€

RP = 1Q

xC x( )−∞

∞∫ dx

€

ΔRP = 1Q

x−RP( )−∞

∞∫

2

C x( )dx

€

γ=x−RP( )

3C x( )dx

−∞

∞∫

Q ΔRP3

€

β =x−RP( )

4C x( )dx

−∞

∞∫

Q ΔRP4

Range:

Std. Dev:

Skewness:

Kurtosis:

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

.

30 Degree Tilt

Distance (µm)

Distance (µm)

30˚ tilt

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.2

0

-0.2

-0.4

• Real structures may be even more complicated because mask edges or implants are not vertical.

Arbitrary Distribution of Dopants

Pearson’s model good for amorphous (&fine grain poly-) silicon or for rotation and tilting that makes Si look like amorphous materials.

Two – Dimensional Distributions

Near the mask edge 2D distributions calculated by MC model should be the best – verification difficult due to measuring problems.

Phenomenological description of processes is insufficient for small devices.

Atomistic view in scattering

Thin oxide

Verification through SIMS

Poly-Si


D. Implants in Real Silicon - Channeling

• At least until it is damaged by the implant, Si is a crystalline material.• Channeling can produce unexpectedly deep profiles. • Screen oxides and tilting/rotating the wafer can minimize but not eliminate these effects. (7˚ tilt is common.)

.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8Depth (µm)


2 x 1013 cm-2 scaled

2 x 1013 cm-2

2 x 1015 cm-2

1021

1020

1019

1018

1017

1016

1015

• Sometimes a dual Pearson profile description is useful.• Note that the channeling decreases in the high dose implant (green curve) because damage blocks the channels.

Channeling Effect

As two profiles

Dual-Pearson model gives the main profile and the channeled part. Dependence on dose: damage by higher doses decreases channeling. No channeling for As @ high doses

Parameters are tabulated (for simulators). Include scattering in multiple layers (also masks’ edges). IMPORTANT in small devices! Screen oxide decreases channeling. But watch for O knock-out.

<100>

Channeling not forward scattering

c-Si, B


Channeling

P implantation at 4- keV and low dose Q<1013cm-2

8°

0°

Manufacturing Methods and Equipment

Mass Analysis

Ion velocity

Mass Selection

IB α=

AsH3 PH3 BF2 in 15% H2, all very toxic

mr

Gives mass separation

Integrate the current to determine the dose∫= dt

q

I

A

1D

V

V

Ionsource

Analyzing magnet

Pump

Resolvingaperature

Accelerator

Focus

Neutralbeam gate

Neutraltrap X & Y

scanplates

Wafer

Faraday cup

Q0-30keV

0-200keV

For low E implant no acceleration

Neutral ions can be implanted (w/o deflection=center) but will not be measured in Dose (use trap) Ion beam heating T increases - keep it below 200 °C

Centrifugal force

Lorentz force

€

Edep=V Idt=VQ∫

B++, B+, F+, BF, BF2

+

High Energy Implants

Applications in fabrication of: wells (multiple implants give correct profiles ex. uniform or retrograde), buried oxides,

buried layers (MeV, large doses)! - replaces highly doped substrate with epi-layers

CMOS

UEB

UBE

0.7V

0.7V

p-n-p n-p-n

Decrease of Rsub - less latch-up

Thyristor structure

In latch-up

Future IC fabrication: implantation at high energy becomes more important - reduction of processing steps

Ultralow Energy Implants

Required by shallow junctions in VLSI circuits (50 eV- B) - ions will land softly as in MBE

Extraction of ions from a plasma source ~ 30keV

Options:•Lowering the extraction voltage Vout the space charge limited current limits the dose

• J α V1/2extd-2 ex. J2keV=1/4•J5keV

• Extraction at the final energy used in the newest implantors but not for high doses due to self limitation due to sputtering at the surface. Now 250 eV available,; 50 eV to come

• Deceleration (decel mode) more neutrals formed and implanted deeper that ions (doping nonuniformities)

• Transient Enhanced Diffusion (TED) present in the low energy Ion Implantation and {311} defects.


Modeling of Range Statistics

• The total energy loss during an ion trajectory is given by the sum of nuclear and electronic losses (these can be treated independently).

€

dEdx

=−N Sn+Se( )

€

R = dx0

R

∫ =1N

dESn(E )+Se(E )0

E0

∫

(13)

(14)

A. Nuclear Stopping

TargetRecoil

Incidention

ScatteredIon

• An incident ion scatters off the core charge on an atomic nucleus, modeled to first order by a screened Coulomb scattering potential.

(15)

• This potential is integrated along the path of the ion to calculate the scattering angle. (Look-up tables are often used in practice.) • Sn(E) in Eqn. (14) can be approximated as shown below where Z1, m1 = ion and Z2, m2 = substrate.

€

Sn(E )= 2.8x10−15 Z1Z2

Z12 / 3 + Z2

2 / 3 ⎛ ⎝ ⎜ ⎞

⎠ ⎟1 / 2

m1m1 +m2

eV- cm2 (16)Nuclear stopping power

The range

Scattering potential

Role of electrons in screening

Thomas Fermi model

Energy transferred

Head-on collision (max energy transferred)Z2, m2 Elastic

collisions

Computers used to find R

Models and Simulations

• Rutherford(1911) - α(He) backscattered due to collision with a + nucleus.

• Bohr- the nuclear energy loss due to + atoms cores and electronic loss due to free electrons decrease

Many contributors.

• Lindhard, Scharff and Schiott (1963) (LSS)


B. Non-Local and Local Electronic StoppingDielectric Medium

Retarding E-field

Vion

Vion

Target

e-

• Drag force caused by charged ion in "sea" of electrons (non-local electronic stopping).

• Collisions with electrons around atoms transfers momentum and results in local electronic stopping.

€

Se(E )=cvion=kE1 / 2

€

k ≅0.2x10−15 ev1/2 cm2

(17)

• To first order, where

C. Total Stopping Power

.

Energy loss (keV µm-1)

10

100

1000

10 100 1000Energy (keV)

AsN

BN

SEPN

• The critical energy Ec when the nuclear and electronic stopping are equal is

B: ≈ 17keVP: ≈ 150keVAs, Sb : > 500keV

• Thus at high energies, electronic stopping dominates; at low energy, nuclear stopping dominates.

Energy loss w/o the trajectory change

NonlocalLocal

Inelastic Collisions with electrons momentum transfer, small change of the trajectory.


Damage Production

Ed=Displacement energy (for a Frenkel pair) 15eV large damage induced by Ion Implantation

30 keV As Rp 25mm

E decreases to Ed so that ions stop.

n= Number of displaced Si atoms

€

n =En2Ed

2 @ E down to Ed : atoms↑ the

number of displaced atoms

⎛

⎝ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟

n =30 ,0002⋅15

=1000 1 .displaced atoms by As ion

Dose – large damage!

Si Si

€

=25nm

0.25nm interplanar spacing( )

• Consider a 30keV arsenic ion, which has a range of 25 nm, traversing roughly 100 atomic planes.

Time for the ion to stop

sec10m2E

Rt 13p −≈=

1 ion primary damage: defect clusters, dopant-defect complexes, I and V

( ) ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛−=

α

ΔN

N1nfxn rec ionamorphizat N % 10

defects local

Si =−−

αNN

Increment in damage

more recombination for heavy ions since damage is less dispersed than for light ions: B-0.1, P-0.4, As-0.6.

Damage in Implantation

• Molecular dynamics simulation of a 5keV Boron ion implanted into silicon [de la Rubia, LLNL].• Note that some of the damage anneals out between 0.5 and 6 psec (point defects recombining).

Damage evolution (atomic interaction) stabilization @ lower concentrations due to local recombiination

Damage related to dose and energy

Fraction of recombined defects (displaced atoms)

Damage accumulates in subsequent cascades and depends on existing N -local defects

Damage in Implantation Including Amorphization

Damage is mainly due to nuclear energy losses : for B @ Rp. As – everywhere in the Dopant profile.

α- Si forms @ large doses and spread wider with the increasing Q.

α- Si forms @ low T of II (LN2) , @ RT or higher – recombination (in-situ annealing)

α- Si is buried

Preamorphization eliminates the channeling effect

• Cross sectional TEM images of amorphous layer formation with increasing implant dose (300keV Si -> Si) [Rozgonyi]• Note that a buried amorphous layer forms first and a substantially higher dose is needed before the amorphous layer extends all the way to the surface.• These ideas suggest preamorphizing the substrate with a Si (or Ge) implant to prevent channeling when dopants are later implanted.


Damage Annealing - Solid Phase Epitaxy

5 min 10 min 15 min 20 min

Amorphous

100 nm

EORdamage

.

SPE regrowth

EOR loops

Residualdamage

Max damagebelow

amorphizationthreshold

a/c interface

Implanted ProfileConcentration

DepthSurface

• If the substrate is amorphous, it can regrow by SPE.• In the SPE region, all damage is repaired and dopants are activated onto substitutional sites. • Cross sectional TEM images of amorphous layer regrowth at 525˚C, from a 200keV, 6e15 cm-2 Sb implant.

• In the tail region, the material is not amorphized.• Damage beyond the a/c interface can nucleate stable, secondary defects and cause transient enhanced diffusion (TED).

Damage Annealing (more)

Formation of End-of-Range (EOR) defects @ a/c interface in Si large damage after II @ the C-Si side but below the threshold for amorphization. Loops R= 10 nm grow to 20 nm in 1000 °C

Solid Phase Epitaxy

Furnace

850 °C

RTP

1000 °C

5 min

60 min

960 min

1 sec

60 sec

400 sec 1000 °C gives stable dislocation loops1100 °C/60 sec may be enough to remove the dislocation loops .

Loops in P-N junctions leakage

Optimize annealing: Short time, high T to limit dopant diffusion but remove defects

Optimize I2 : LN2 Ge 4*1014 cm-2 RT- 5*1014 cm-2 produces a-Si@ RT , EOR @ 100 nm depth =25 nm, 1010 cm-2 @ 900 °C/15 min

@ LN2 NO EOR!

{311}&loops

Heating by I-beam - defects harder to be remove


Damage Annealing - “+1” Model

.

10-8 10-6 10-4 10-2 1 100

0.1

1

10

100

Surface Vrecombination

Bulk I&Vrecombination

Surface Irecombination

Initial excess I & V

Annhilated I & V per implanted ion

Seconds

Goals: • Remove primary damage created by the implant and activate the dopants.• Restore silicon lattice to its perfect crystalline state. • Restore the electron and hole mobility.• Do this without appreciable dopant redistribution.

• In regions where SPE does not take place (not amorphized), damage is removed by point defect recombination. Clusters of I recombine = dissolve @ the surface

• Bulk and surface recombination take place on a short time scale.

.

<311>

<110>

311 Capture radiusI-dimer

Ribbon-like defect

• "+1" I excess remains. These I coalesce into {311} defects which are stable for longer periods.• {311} defects anneal out in sec to min at moderate temperatures (800 - 1000˚C) but eject I TED.

Primary defects start to anneal at 400 °C all damage must be annealed with only +1 atom remaining. (+1 model)

Frenkel pairs

@ 900 °C, 5 sec 1011 cm-2 of {311}; not long=10 nm rods

then dissolve if below critical size or else grow

dislocation loops (stable) = extrinsic e. i. Si I planes on {111}

= secondary defects. (difficult to remove)

After 10-2s only “I”

Fast

Solid State EpitaxyRegrowth from the C-Si acting as a seed (as in crystal growth

from melt)

@ 600 deg C, 50 nm/min <100>

20 nm/min <110>

2 nm/min <111>

2.3 eV is for Si-Si bond breaking

Dopants are active =substitutional position with very little diffusion.

But high T might be needed for EOR annealing.

⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎝

⎛−=T

3.2expAv

Time

Regrowth rate

No defects=no diffusion enhancements

Regrowth 10x larger for highly doped regions


Dopant Activation.

400 500 600 700 800 900 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

TA (̊ C)

Sub AmorphousAmorphous

3 x 1012 cm-2

1 x 1015 cm-2

1 x 1014 cm-2Fraction Active

.

8 x 1012 cm-2

2.5 x 1014

2 x 1015

ReverseAnnealing

1.0

0.1

0.01400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

TA (̊ C)

Fraction Active

• When the substrate is amorphous, SPE provides an ideal way of repairing the damage and activating dopants (except that EOR damage may remain).• At lower implant doses, activation is much more complex because stable defects form.

• Plot (above left) of fractional activation versus anneal temperature for boron. • Reverse annealing (above right) is thought to occur because of a competition between the native interstitial point defects and the boron atoms for lattice sites.

Dopant Activation – No PremorphizationLow T Annealing is enough for low doses – low primary damage can be easily annealed.

High doses – damage below amorphization secondary defects = difficult to anneal and requires high T 950-1050 ° C.

1. High initial activation, full activation is fast @ low T,

2. Low initial activation, traps anneal out, I compete with B for substitutional sites, I –B complexes

3. More damage so activation decreases with dose maintaining the same behavior.

(1)(2)

(3)

Full activation

Doses below amorphization High doses - high T required which causes more diffusion - in small devices unacceptable

Amorphization improves activation @ low T leading to 100% @ high TNote: very high doses may result in low activation (25%)

Secondary defects from

Carriers’ mobility increases with damage anneal

Increasing dose

© 2000 by prentice hall upper saddle river nj ion implantation - chapter 8 basic concepts ion...

Documents