Effect of uniaxial stress on solid phase epitaxy in patterned Si wafers

Rudawski, Nicholas G.; Siebein, Kerry; Jones, K. S.

doi:10.1063/1.2337994

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This orientation dependence was also observed in studies using patterned amorphized wafers. [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] Previous attempts 43 to model and simulate the orientation dependence of SPER in the patterned amorphized regions have been made but have not been extended to initial ␣-c interfaces with any shape other than rectilinear. This somewhat limits the capability of prior models in predicting SPER evolution for different types of initial ␣-c interfaces and makes it difficult to gain further insight into the nature of regrowth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling two-dimensional solid-phase epitaxial regrowth using level set methods

Morarka

Rudawski

Law

et al. 2009

Journal of Applied Physics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modeling the two-dimensional ͑2D͒ solid-phase epitaxial regrowth ͑SPER͒ of amorphized Si ͑variously referred to as solid-phase epitaxial growth, solid-phase epitaxy, solid-phase epitaxial crystallization, and solid-phase epitaxial recrystallization͒ has become important in light of recent studies which have indicated that relative differences in the velocities of regrowth fronts with different crystallographic orientations can lead to the formation of device degrading mask edge defects. Here, a 2D SPER model that uses level set techniques as implemented in the Florida object oriented process simulator to propagate regrowth fronts with variable crystallographic orientation ͑patterned material͒ is presented. Apart from the inherent orientation dependence of the SPER velocity, it is established that regrowth interface curvature significantly affects the regrowth velocity. Specifically, by modeling the local SPER velocity as being linearly dependent on the local regrowth interface curvature, data acquired from transmission electron microscopy experiments matches reasonably well with simulations, thus providing a stable model for simulating 2D regrowth and mask edge defect formation in Si.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling two-dimensional solid-phase epitaxial regrowth using level set methods

Morarka

Rudawski

Law

et al. 2009

Journal of Applied Physics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, stress can influence the shape of a regrowing ␣/crystalline interface and it is worthwhile to consider this as stress from trench structures can be significant. 14,15 However, because both SiO 2 -filled and SiO 2 -free trench structures exhibited similar regrowth interfaces, the observations are likely not stress-related.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Effect of Oxide on Trench Edge Defect Formation in Ion-Implanted Silicon

Burbure

Rudawski

Jones

2007

Electrochem. Solid-State Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An investigation of the defects that form near oxide-filled trenches during solid-phase epitaxy of amorphous silicon produced by ion implantation was conducted. It was observed that defects form near the trench edge after recrystallization. Defect formation resulted from pinning of the initial amorphous/crystalline interface at the trench edge and regrowth proceeded until triangular amorphous regions bound by the surface, trench, and ͑111͒ plane were formed. Regrowth of the triangular regions then proceeded along the ͓111͔ direction and was highly defective after recrystallization. Annealing of specimens with oxide-free trenches produced smaller defective regions compared to oxide-filled trenches. © 2007 The Electrochemical Society. ͓DOI: 10.1149/1.2719597͔ All rights reserved.Manuscript submitted December 20, 2006; revised manuscript received February 7, 2007. Available electronically March 28, 2007. It has been known that stress from oxide ͑SiO 2 ͒ trench structures in ion-implanted silicon ͑Si͒ wafers can lead to the formation of defects near trench edges, which may cause device degradation or failure.1-3 These defects typically form during high-temperature processing but may also occur during solid-phase epitaxy ͑SPE͒ of amorphous ͑␣͒ Si. It is known that SPE in bulk Si can lead to the formation of ͕111͖ stacking faults as well as other secondary defects. 4 More relevantly, regrowth of two-dimensional ␣-Si regions via simultaneous SPE of two orthogonal fronts with different crystal orientations in patterned wafers can produce defects near the mask-edge. [5][6][7] However, the formation of defects during SPE near trench structures is not well understood. In the case of high-dose arsenic ͑As͒ implantation well in excess of solubility, trench-edge defects were observed as a result of regrowth interface pinning during SPE.8 Furthermore, As + -implantation is known to cause secondary defect formation at the projected range of implantation, and it is unclear whether the implanted species affects trench-edge defect formation.9,10 Another explanation for trench-edge defects is the migration of point defects to regions of high stress generated by patterned structures, but this not thought to be related to SPE.11 Thus, the goal of this study is to investigate the formation of trench-edge defects during SPE in Si wafers amorphized by Si + implantation. For this study, 300 mm ͑001͒ wafers were patterned with SiO 2 -filled trenches ϳ400 nm deep. After patterning, the wafers were implanted with Si + at energies of 10-80 keV and doses of 1 ϫ 10 15 to 1 ϫ 10 16 cm −2 . This produced ␣-Si layer depths ranging from 20 to 160 nm. Anneals were performed at 700 or 950°C using rapid thermal annealing ͑RTA͒. All anneals were preceded by a 10 s soak at 600°C. Transmission electron microscopy ͑TEM͒ was used to image ␣-Si regrowth in the vicinity of trench edges. Both crosssectional TEM ͑XTEM͒ and plan-view TEM ͑PTEM͒ were used for this study. Imaging was performed using weak-beam dark-field ͑WBDF͒ or on-axis bright-field ͑BF͒ con...

show abstract

“…However, it is important to consider the role that applied stress may have on the SPEG process in patterned material, since the presence of stresses of substantial magnitude is ubiquitous in current Si-based device fabrication (Hu, 1991). Interestingly, extensive prior work showed that the application of different forms of mechanical stress during SPEG could alter the morphology of the evolving growth interface thus favoring or impeding mask-edge defect formation (Olson et al, 2006;Rudawski et al, 2006Rudawski et al, , 2008aRudawski et al, , 2009bShin et al, 2001a,b,c). Specifically, when uniaxial tension was applied along the in-plane [110] direction during SPEG, the impingement of the two portions of the growth interface was retarded, which resulted in defect-free growth (Olson et al, 2006;Rudawski et al, 2006Rudawski et al, , 2008aRudawski et al, , 2009b.…”

Section: Stress Effectsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Interestingly, extensive prior work showed that the application of different forms of mechanical stress during SPEG could alter the morphology of the evolving growth interface thus favoring or impeding mask-edge defect formation (Olson et al, 2006;Rudawski et al, 2006Rudawski et al, , 2008aRudawski et al, , 2009bShin et al, 2001a,b,c). Specifically, when uniaxial tension was applied along the in-plane [110] direction during SPEG, the impingement of the two portions of the growth interface was retarded, which resulted in defect-free growth (Olson et al, 2006;Rudawski et al, 2006Rudawski et al, , 2008aRudawski et al, , 2009b. In contrast, when uniaxial compression was applied along the in-plane [110] direction during SPEG, the impingement of the two portions of the growth interface was enhanced, which resulted in defective growth (Olson et al, 2006;Rudawski et al, 2006Rudawski et al, , 2008aRudawski et al, , 2009b.…”

Section: Stress Effectsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Specifically, when uniaxial tension was applied along the in-plane [110] direction during SPEG, the impingement of the two portions of the growth interface was retarded, which resulted in defect-free growth (Olson et al, 2006;Rudawski et al, 2006Rudawski et al, , 2008aRudawski et al, , 2009b. In contrast, when uniaxial compression was applied along the in-plane [110] direction during SPEG, the impingement of the two portions of the growth interface was enhanced, which resulted in defective growth (Olson et al, 2006;Rudawski et al, 2006Rudawski et al, , 2008aRudawski et al, , 2009b.…”

Section: Stress Effectsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation