banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
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.
Dopant effects on solid phase epitaxy in silicon and germanium
Rent this article for


Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Strain dependence on dopant concentration in (a) Si and (b) Ge for various dopants studied in this work. Young’s modulus in the (110) direction was taken to be 168.7 and 136.2 GPa for Si and Ge, respectively.11

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

The normalized SPE rate as a function of dopant concentration in Si according to the extrinsic GFLS model (Eq. (5)) and the degenerate GFLS model (Eq. (1)). The values used for this 460 °C simulation are E − = 0.125, g = 0.5, and . The value of was determined with a dopant having a covalent radius of 1.11 Å (tensile stress) or 1.21 Å (compressive stress). For the degenerate model, a value of E − = 0.2 was used for comparison with the other models.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

(Color online) The normalized SPE rate for (a) As and (b) P implanted a-Si layers from Refs. 3 and 4 for various anneal temperatures indicated by the legend. The dopant concentration, Nd , is normalized by Eq. (5) with (EC E ) = (0.118 ± 0.009) eV, g = 0.5, and ΔV = . For P concentrations of 2 × 1020 cm−3 and above, the enhanced SPE rate deviates from the dashed line, y = x.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(Color online) The normalized SPE rate for B implanted a-Si layers from Ref. 4 as a function of (a) the normalized B concentration and (b) the SPE anneal temperature. The lines are fits using (E +EV ) = (0.149 ± 0.009) eV, g = 1, and ΔV = (3.5 ± 2). For concentrations of 2 × 1020 cm−3 and above, the enhanced SPE rate deviates from the dashed line, y = x. In (b), only the prediction for the 2 × 1020 cm−3 data set can be seen in this y-axis range.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

The SPE rate as a function of c/a interface depth at 388 °C in an intrinsic Ge sample and a sample implanted with 1.1 MeV Sb to a fluence of 3 × 1015 cm−2. The Sb SRIM simulation is plotted against the right axis for comparison.29

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

The Arrhenius behavior of the SPE regrowth rate in the intrinsic and the 5 × 1019 and 1 × 1020 cm−3 Sb implanted Ge samples.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

(a) The sheet resistance, (b) the Hall mobility, and (c) the Hall carrier fluence as a function of the SPE anneal temperature and (d) the drift mobility as a function of the active Sb concentration. The dashed line in (d) is an empirical relationship from Ref. 34 for drift mobility extrapolated to the high concentration regime.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

(Color online) The SPE rates of (a) Sb and (b) As implanted a-Ge normalized against the SPE velocity of undoped a-Ge at each temperature. Solid lines are Eq. (5) with (EC E ) = 0.007 eV, g = 0.5 and ΔV = 3 . The As-enhanced SPE rates are from Ref. 5. The expected trends for Sb concentrations of 5 and 10 × 1019 cm−3 are also shown in (a).


Generic image for table
Table I.

Summary of the SPE defect energy level and degeneracy and the activation volume in a doped semiconductor determined with the extrinsic GFLS model (Eq. (5)). Errors are from the fits only.


Article metrics loading...


Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Dopant effects on solid phase epitaxy in silicon and germanium