1987
DOI: 10.1063/1.97955
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of carrier profiles from spreading resistance analysis and from model calculations for abrupt doping structures

Abstract: Very abrupt doping structures grown by Si molecular beam epitaxy are investigated by spreading resistance (SR) analysis. The corresponding SR profiles reveal strong carrier spilling effects. To calculate the ‘‘on bevel’’ carrier concentrations of these structures, a formalism is developed which is based on the Poisson–Boltzmann equation. Qualitative agreement between the model calculation and the SR data is established.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
20
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This behavior was attributed to the carrier spilling effect and the bevel geometry. 7,13,14 Within the regions with carrier concentrations higher than ϳ1 ϫ 10 18 cm Ϫ3 , the SRP data are in reasonable agreement with the SIMS results, considering that the estimate of error in SRP measurements was Ϯ20%. The experimental SIMS data (As concentration) of the samples are in very good agreement with the simulated SIMS results of the experimental conditions.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…This behavior was attributed to the carrier spilling effect and the bevel geometry. 7,13,14 Within the regions with carrier concentrations higher than ϳ1 ϫ 10 18 cm Ϫ3 , the SRP data are in reasonable agreement with the SIMS results, considering that the estimate of error in SRP measurements was Ϯ20%. The experimental SIMS data (As concentration) of the samples are in very good agreement with the simulated SIMS results of the experimental conditions.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…27,28 In the case of SRP measurements, the concentration profiles reported in Figs. 2͑c͒ and 2͑d͒ ͑triangles͒ have been obtained using the iterative method proposed by Casel et al 26 ͑cf. Sec.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The samples were beveled at an angle of 4°and the probe spacing was 30 m. The analysis of the SRP data has been performed using the iterative method proposed by Casel et al, 26 in which a starting active dopant profile is used to calculate the experimental SRP profile ͑resistance versus depth͒ from Poisson's equation and taking into account the zero bias depletion effect. 27,28 Once a good agreement between the calculated and the experimental profiles is achieved, the starting active dopant profile is validated.…”
Section: B Characterization Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The shallow depth of standard SRP as compared to SIMS is due to the phenomenon of carrier spilling and the bevel geometry. 16 In the absence of a p-n junction the SRP data should match with the SIMS data, but even in this case the SIMS data show a deeper profile than the SRP. As the boron profile approaches the background, small changes in the depth gives large changes in the order of magnitude of the associated dopant ͑carrier͒ concentration.…”
Section: Calibration Of Etch Depth Using Sims Datamentioning
confidence: 79%