ESR AND OPTICAL ABSORPTION STUDIES OF ION‐IMPLANTED SILICON
1.S. Kurtin, G. A. Shifrin, and T. C. McGill, Appl. Phys. Letters 14, 223 (1969).
2.R. R. Hart and O. J. Marsh, Appl. Phys. Letters 14, 225 (1969).
3.J. A. Davies, J. Denhertog, L. Eriksson, and J. W. Mayer, Can. J. Phys. 45, 4053 (1967).
4.S. T. Picraux, J. E. Westmoreland, J. W. Mayer, R. R. Hart, and O. J. Marsh, Appl. Phys. Letters 14, 7 (1969).
5.L. Eriksson, J. A. Davies, N. Johansson, and J. W. Mayer, J. Appl. Phys. 40, 842 (1969).
6.R. S. Nelson and D. J. Mazey, International Conference on Applications of Ion Beams to Semiconductor Technology, Grenoble, France, 1967, p. 337 (unpublished).
7.J. M. Fairfield and B. L. Crowder, Trans. AIME 245, 469 (1969).
8.M. H. Brodsky and R. S. Title, Phys. Rev. Letters 23, 581 (1969).
9.M. H. Brodsky, K. Weiser, G. D. Pettit, and R. S. Title, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 14, 311 (1969) and to be published.
10.C. R. Burnett, J. G. Hirschberg, and J. E. Mack, in Handbook of Physics, edited by E. U. Condon and H. Odishaw (McGraw‐Hill Book Co., New York, 1958), pp. 6–77.
11.The simple expressions given in the text are valid for a thin layer of amorphous Si on crystalline Si. If the amorphous layer is buried, the situation is more complex: (1) Fringes due to interference from the beam reflected from the crystalline Si‐amorphous Si interface will also be present. Equations similar to those given in the text are applicable to these fringes, provided the role of maxima and minima are reversed and provided the refractive index of crystalline Si is used in the calculations; and (2) accurate calculations of the depth at which the amorphous Si‐crystalline Si interface occurs must utilize a refractive index appropriately weighted to account for the fact that the reflected beam from this interface travels partly through crystalline Si and partly through amorphous Si. It should be noted, however, that the refractive indices of crystalline Si and amorphous Si differ by less than 20%.
12.If the implanted wafer contains adjacent implanted and unimplanted regions and if a comparison “standard” [i. e., a wafer implanted with a dose in excess of that required for saturation disorder as determined either by experiments discussed in the text or by Rutherford back‐scattering experiments (Refs. 3–5)] is used, visual inspection provides a simple criterion for detecting amorphous surface layers. In this respect, visual inspection is superior to electron diffraction studies, in which the surface is deemed to be amorphous at a dose approximately an order of magnitude lower than that required to produce saturation disorder (see, e.g., Ref. 15).Evidently, the degree of disorder required to produce amorphous diffraction patterns is lower than the degree of disorder present in amorphous Si.
13.W. C. Dash and R. Newman, Phys. Rev. 99, 1151 (1955).
14.B. L. Crowder and F. F. Morehead, Appl. Phys. Letters 14, 313 (1969).
15.S. M. Irving, in Semiconductor Silicon, edited by R. R. Haberecht and E. L. Kern (The Electrochemical Society, New York, 1969), p. 433.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...
Most read this month
Most cited this month