2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.mseb.2008.08.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evolution of end-of-range defects in silicon-on-insulator substrates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
(22 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…5,6 This means that in the experiment, even if you adjust the implantation parameters to leave a crystal seed in the middle of the fin body, it will be populated by a large number of Si selfinterstitial defects, which could influence the quality of regrowth. In order to reproduce more accurately the experimental situation, we have repeated the previously described MD simulation but introducing Si self-interstitial atoms within the initial crystal seed to a concentration of 4 Â 10 21 cm À3 (of the order of residual defect concentrations at typical implant doses).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…5,6 This means that in the experiment, even if you adjust the implantation parameters to leave a crystal seed in the middle of the fin body, it will be populated by a large number of Si selfinterstitial defects, which could influence the quality of regrowth. In order to reproduce more accurately the experimental situation, we have repeated the previously described MD simulation but introducing Si self-interstitial atoms within the initial crystal seed to a concentration of 4 Â 10 21 cm À3 (of the order of residual defect concentrations at typical implant doses).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only some defects remain beyond the initial amorphous/crystal (a/c) interface. [5][6][7] However, in the case of nanometric multigate devices, regrowth is not as straightforward as in bulk Si due to the presence of lateral free surfaces or interfaces with amorphous SiO 2 (see Fig. 1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the case of conventional planar devices, SPER produces the complete regrowth of the amorphous region up to the Si surface, with good crystalline quality and high dopant activation level in the regrown layer [109,115,116]. However, in the case of 3D nanometric multigate devices, SPER is not as straightforward as in bulk Si [87,[117][118][119].…”
Section: Cmd Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 Reduced short channel effects, improved speed, and reduced power consumption in complementary metal oxide semiconductor devices are all achievable with these substrates. 2 An additional advantage of SOI consists of the possibility to reduce the number of silicon interstitials created during the source/drain implant steps by recombining them at the buried Si-SiO 2 interface, which results in a better control of several deleterious effects, such as extended defect formation, 3,4 dopant deactivation, 5 and transient enhanced diffusion ͑TED͒. 6 The behavior of the buried Si-SiO 2 interface with respect to the implant-generated interstitial excess has been a longstanding subject of research and, with the exception of a few reports suggesting that the interface has no impact at all on dopant diffusion 7 or acts has a reflective boundary for interstitials, 8 the vast majority of previous reports shows that it behaves as an efficient sink for interstitials.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…6 The behavior of the buried Si-SiO 2 interface with respect to the implant-generated interstitial excess has been a longstanding subject of research and, with the exception of a few reports suggesting that the interface has no impact at all on dopant diffusion 7 or acts has a reflective boundary for interstitials, 8 the vast majority of previous reports shows that it behaves as an efficient sink for interstitials. [3][4][5][6][9][10][11] Several physical phenomena have been investigated in these studies which give a more or less direct evidence of the interstitial recombination at the Si-SiO 2 interface. In some cases, a quantitative estimation of the recombination length for interstitials at the interface L int has also been given.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%