multiscale approach for the analysis of channeling profile measurements of ion implantation damage
DESCRIPTION
Multiscale Approach for the Analysis of Channeling Profile Measurements of Ion Implantation Damage. G. Hobler, G. Otto, D. Kovac L. Palmetshofer 1 , K. Mayerhofer², K. Piplits² 1 Inst. Semiconductor and Solid State Physics, Univ. Linz ² Inst. Chem. Technol. and Analytics, TU Vienna. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Multiscale Approach for the Analysis of Channeling Profile
Measurements of Ion Implantation Damage
G. Hobler, G. Otto, D. KovacL. Palmetshofer1,
K. Mayerhofer², K. Piplits²1 Inst. Semiconductor and Solid State Physics, Univ. Linz
² Inst. Chem. Technol. and Analytics, TU Vienna
Institute of Solid-State Electronics
Damage Models in BC Simulations
• Traditional model:– defect positions: generated statistically
– atom positions: random interstitial model
– dynamic annealing: „recombination factor“
• Proposed model:– defect positions: trace each defect during the whole
simulation
– atom positions: take from ab-initio simulations
– dynamic annealing: kinetic lattice Monte Carlo simulation (kLMC) after each collision cascade
Overview
• Introduction
• BC-kLMC approach
• Application to channeling profile measurement (CPM) experiments
Damage Measurements
RBS
Channelingprofile
Channeling Implantations
• Fit dose dependence of channeling implantation profiles recombination factor
frec=0.125 Nsat=41021cm-2
(G.Hobler et al., J. Vac. Sci. Technol B14 (1) 272, 1996)
Channeling Profile Measurements
• Measure pre-existing crystal damage with a low-dose channeling implant
(M. Giles et al., MRS Symp. Proc. 469, 253, 1997)
The Role of Dynamic Annealing in Si
• Temperature dependence of implant damage:
(J.E. Westmoreland et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 15, 308, 1969)
The Role of Dynamic Annealing in Si
• Dose-rate dependence of implant damage:
T=300K
(O.W. Holland et al., Rad. Eff. 90, 127, 1985)
70µA/cm²
0.14µA/cm²
Overview
• Introduction
• BC-kLMC approach
• Application to channeling profile measurement (CPM) experiments
Coupled BC-kLMC Approach
• Traditional approach:
• BUT: type and amount of defects influence BC trajectories (dechanneling)
kLMC
BCloopover
cascades
1 cascade
pointdefects
point defects + clusters
Coupled BC-kLMC Approach
• Proposed new approach:
kLMC
BCloopover
cascades old defects + new point defects
point defects + clusters
atom positionsfor each defect
defects
Details of kLMC
• Each defect is associated with one or more lattice sites
• Defects: Vn, In (n=1,2,3,...)
• Events:– Diffusion hops (I, V)
– Reactions of defects located within capture radius
Vn+V Vn+1 Vn+I Vn-1 In+I In+1 In+V In-1
• Parameters:
– DV=310-13 cm²/s DI=6.3510-17 cm²/s
– (Capture radii)
Details of kLMC
• „Old“ defects: restricted to column(periodic boundaryconditions)
• „New“ defects: anywhere
• Interaction between „new“
and „old“ defects: Using periodicity of „old“ defects
Details of BC
• Read defects from kLMC (columnar domain)
• Use periodicity to generate defects around projectile
• Atom positions from ab-initio calculations (VASP)– defect structure
– strain around defect
• All defects composed of individual I and V (currently)
Overview
• Introduction
• BC-kLMC approach
• Application to channeling profile measurement (CPM) experiments
CPM Experiments
• Damage implant: N, 30 keV, 31014 cm-², 10° tilt
• CPM implant: B, 30 keV, 1013 cm-2, 0° tilt
shield(110)-Si
CPM Experiments
• Results:
CPM Simulation Results
• Simulation results without strain:
CPM Simulation Results
• Strain from vacancies:
CPM Simulation Results
• Strain from interstitials:
What is wrong?
• Defects: Vn, In (n=1,2,3,...)
• Events:– Diffusion hops (I, V)
– Reactions of defects located within capture radius
Vn+V Vn+1 Vn+I Vn-1 In+I In+1 In+V In-1
• Parameters:
– DV=310-13 cm²/s DI=6.3510-17 cm²/s
– (Capture radii)
• Lack of amorphous pockets?
What is wrong?
• Defects: Vn, In (n=1,2,3,...)
• Events:– Diffusion hops (I, V)
– Reactions of defects located within capture radius
Vn+V Vn+1 Vn+I Vn-1 In+I In+1 In+V In-1
• Parameters:
– DV=310-13 cm²/s DI=6.3510-17 cm²/s
– (Capture radii)
• Lack of amorphous pockets? NO
• Approximate treatment of I-Clusters?
What is wrong?
• I-Clusters:
• Similar study on RBS-C: Efficiency of I2, I3, I4 within 40% of split-110 interstitial
I I2 I3
I4a I4b
(G. Lulli et al., Phys. Rev. B69, 165216, 2004)
What is wrong?
• Defects: Vn, In (n=1,2,3,...)
• Events:– Diffusion hops (I, V)
– Reactions of defects located within capture radius
Vn+V Vn+1 Vn+I Vn-1 In+I In+1 In+V In-1
• Parameters:
– DV=310-13 cm²/s DI=6.3510-17 cm²/s
– (Capture radii)
• Lack of amorphous pockets? NO
• Approximate treatment of I-Clusters? Probably not
• Attraction of I+Vn, V+In and/or Repulsion of I+In, V+Vn
Conclusions
• New approach for implant damage simulations– coupled BC and kLMC
– atom positions from ab-initio
• Consistent simulation of both defect generation and analysis
• Simulations yield too much damage need to use– interaction radii to favor recombination and/or
– reaction barriers to impede clustering