Insights into high-dose helium implantation of silicon

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The paper reports an analysis of surface morphology variation and cavity band formation in silicon single crystal induced by ion implantation and post-implantation annealing in different regimes. Critical implantation doses required to promote surface erosion are determined for samples subjected to post-implantation annealing and in absence of post-implantation treatment. For instance, implantation with helium ions to fluences below 3 × 1017 He+/cm2 without post-implantation annealing does not affect the surface morphology; while annealing of samples implanted with fluences of 2 × 1017 He+/cm2 and higher promotes flaking.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

P. A. Aleksandrov

National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”

Email: a.vasiliev56@gmail.com
Russian Federation, Moscow

O. V. Emelyanova

Shubnikov Institute of Crystallography of Kurchatov Complex of Crystallography and Photonics of National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”

Email: a.vasiliev56@gmail.com
Russian Federation, Moscow

S. G. Shemardov

National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”

Email: a.vasiliev56@gmail.com
Russian Federation, Moscow

D. N. Khmelenin

Shubnikov Institute of Crystallography of Kurchatov Complex of Crystallography and Photonics of National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”

Email: a.vasiliev56@gmail.com
Russian Federation, Moscow

A. L. Vasiliev

National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”; Shubnikov Institute of Crystallography of Kurchatov Complex of Crystallography and Photonics of National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”

Author for correspondence.
Email: a.vasiliev56@gmail.com
Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

References

  1. Follstaedt D.M., Myers S.M., Petersen G.A., Medernach J.W. // J. Electron Mater. 1996. V. 25. № 1. P. 157. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02666190
  2. Raineri V., Fallica P.G., Percolla G. et al. // J. Appl. Phys. 1995. V. 78. № 6. P. 3727. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.359953
  3. Raineri V., Saggio M., Rimini E. // J. Mater. Res. 2000. V. 15. № 7. P. 1449. https://doi.org/10.1557/JMR.2000.0211
  4. Griffioen C.C., Evans J.H., De Jong P.C., Van Veen A. // Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B. 1987. V. 27. № 3. P. 417. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-583X(87)90522-2
  5. Evans J.H., Van Veen A., Griffioen C.C. // Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B. 1987. V. 28. № 3. P. 360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-583X(87)90176-5
  6. Corni F., Nobili C., Ottaviani G. et al. // Phys. Rev. B. 1997. V. 56. № 12. P. 7331. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.56.7331
  7. Fichtner P.F.P., Kaschny J.R., Yankov R.A. et al. // Appl. Phys. Lett. 1997. V. 70. № 6. P. 732. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.118251
  8. Fichtner P.F.P., Kaschny J.R., Behar M. et al. // Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B. 1999. V. 148. № 1. P. 329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-583X(98)00714-9
  9. Corni F., Calzolari G., Frabboni S. et al. // J. Appl. Phys. 1999. V. 85. № 3. P. 1401. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.369335
  10. Cerofolini G.F., Calzolari G., Corni F. et al. // Phys. Rev. B. 2000. V. 61. № 15. P. 10183. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.61.10183
  11. Da Silva D.L., Fichtner P.F.P., Peeva A. et al. // Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B. 2001. V. 175–177. P. 335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-583X(00)00567-X
  12. Evans J.H. // Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B. 2002. V. 196. № 1. P. 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-583X(02)01290-9
  13. David M.L., Beaufort M.F., Barbot J.F. // J. Appl. Phys. 2003. V. 93. № 3. P. 1438. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1531814
  14. Pizzagalli L., David M.L., Bertolus M. // Model. Simul. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2013. V. 21. № 6. P. 065002. https://doi.org/10.1088/0965-0393/21/6/065002
  15. Liu L., Xu X., Li R. et al. // Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B. 2019. V. 456. P. 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2019.06.034
  16. Ono K., Miyamoto M., Kurata H. et al. // J. Appl. Phys. 2019. V. 126. № 13. P. 135104. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5118684
  17. Pizzagalli L., Dérès J., David M.-L., Jourdan T. // J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 2019. V. 52. № 45. P. 455106. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/ab3816
  18. Ogura A. // Appl. Phys. Lett. 2003. V. 82. № 25. P. 4480. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1586783
  19. Van Veen A., Schut H., Hakvoort R.A. et al. // MRS Online Proceedings Library. 1994. V. 373. № 1. P. 499. https://doi.org/10.1557/PROC-373-499
  20. Myers S.M., Bishop D.M., Follstaedt D.M. et al. // MRS Online Proceedings Library. 1992. V. 283. № 1. P. 549. https://doi.org/10.1557/PROC-283-549
  21. Was G.S. Fundamentals of Radiation Materials Science. New York: Springer, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3438-6
  22. Kótai E., Pászti F., Manuaba A. et al. // Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B. 1987. V. 19–20. P. 312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-583X(87)80063-0
  23. Qian C., Terreault B. // J. Appl. Phys. 2001. V. 90. № 10. P. 5152. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1413234
  24. Li B., Zhang C., Zhou L. et al. // Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B. 2008. V. 266. № 24. P. 5112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2008.09.016
  25. Alix K., David M.-L., Dérès J. et al. // Phys. Rev. B. 2018. V. 97. № 10. P. 104102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.104102
  26. Ziegler J.F., Ziegler M.D., Biersack J.P. // Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B. 2010. V. 268. № 11. P. 1818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2010.02.091
  27. Griffin P.J. // 16th European Conference on Radiation and Its Effects on Components and Systems (RADECS). 2016. P. 1. https://doi.org/10.1109/RADECS.2016.8093101
  28. Arganda-Carreras I., Kaynig V., Ruedenet C. et al. // Bioinformatics. 2017. V. 33. № 15. P. 2424. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx180
  29. Jenc̆ic̆ I., Bench M.W., Robertson I.M., Kirk M.A. // J. Appl. Phys. 1995. V. 78. № 2. P. 974. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.360764
  30. Han W.T., Liu H.P., Li B. // Appl. Surf. Sci. 2018. V. 455. P. 433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2018.05.228
  31. Yang Z., Zou Z., Zhang Z. et al. // Materials. 2021. V. 14. № 17. P. 5107. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14175107

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Profiles of the distribution of implanted He and damaging dose over the depth of a Si sample implanted with a fluence of 1 × 1017 cm–2.

Download (103KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. SEM image of single-crystal Si wafers after implantation and annealing in different modes: a, b – implantation with fluence of 3 × 1017 cm–2 without annealing, c, d – implantation with fluence of 2 × 1017 cm–2 after annealing at 700°C, d, f – implantation with fluence of 2 × 1017 cm–2 after annealing at 1000°C, g, h – implantation with fluence of 1 × 1017 cm–2 after annealing at 1000°C; a, c, d, g – general view of the sample surface, b, d, f, h – zones subject to blistering/flaking; 1 – surface areas without signs of destruction, 2 – surface areas subject to blistering/flaking (examples are indicated by rectangles in panels a, c, d, g).

Download (1MB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. Bright-field TEM/HTDT STEM images of single-crystal Si wafers after implantation and annealing in different modes: a, b – implantation with a fluence of 3 × 1017 cm–2 without annealing, c, d – implantation with a fluence of 2 × 1017 cm–2 after annealing at 1000°C, d, f – implantation with a fluence of 1 × 1017 cm–2 after annealing at 1000°C; a, c, d – bright-field TEM images, b, d, f – HTDT STEM image.

Download (719KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. Distribution histograms for samples after annealing at 1000°C, implanted with fluences of 1 × 1017 cm–2 and 2 × 1017 cm–2: a – pore/bubble diameter in the entire implanted layer, b – average pore/bubble diameter depending on their depth

Download (98KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 5. High-resolution TEM images of single-crystal Si wafers after implantation with a fluence of 2 × 1017 cm–2 and annealing at 1000°C: a, b – pores/bubbles ≤15–20 nm in size, c – pores/bubbles near the projective range of ions with pronounced faceting, d – pores/bubbles constituting chains.

Download (353KB)
Indexing metadata
7. Fig. 6. STEM image of the samples obtained using VKTD (a), ERM distribution of elements along line 1 (b) and ERM element distribution maps: Si (c) and O (d).

Download (486KB)
Indexing metadata
8. Fig. 7. High-resolution TEM images of samples after implantation with a fluence of 2 × 1017 cm–2 and annealing at 1000°C: a – before exposure to the electron beam, b – after exposure to an electron beam with an energy of 200 keV in scanning mode for 10 min.

Download (184KB)
Indexing metadata
9. Fig. 8. High-resolution TEM images of samples after implantation with a fluence of 2 × 1017 cm–2 and annealing at 1000°C: a – rod defects in the {113} planes, b – stacking faults in the {111} planes.

Download (354KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences