You are on page 1of 4

MCEE 704: Physical Modeling of Semiconductor Devices

Lab Report 2: Implant Modeling


Sanjna Lakshminarayanamurthy
The goal of the exercise was to compare the ion implant model used in Silvaco Athena, for this exercise we
simulated the ion implant profile using Sims Verified Dual Pearson (SVDP) and Binary collision approximation
(BCA) also known as Monte Carlo simulation.

Exercise 1:
The implant through a masking oxide with a thickness of 6500 was investigated. Figure 1 represents the
comparison of implant models, it could be clearly seen there are no Boron implanted ions into the silicon and
the masking oxide thickness is good enough to mask the implant. It could also be observed that the 75KeV
default Boron implant profile and the 50 KeV BCA Boron implant profile have the same junction depth
(0.425m), this junction depth is deeper than the default SVDP implant profile junction depth of 0.323m. The
results were compared with the SRIM Software simulation.

a) b)

c) d)
)

Figure 1 Boron Implant profile a) with energy=75KeV in SVDP b) with energy 50KeV in SVDP c) with
energy 50KeV in BCA d) Overlap of a) b) c) implant profiles

It could be observed from figure 1 that the minimum thickness required to block the implant is 4250. The
screen oxide should be lesser 4250. BCA model accounts for the ions colliding with the nearest target atom
and recoils. It does a statistical analysis when compared to the analytical model Dual Pearson. BCA Model uses
Monte Carlo Simulation to compute the ion trajectories and their deflected path with respect to the nuclear and
electronic stopping. It could be observed from figure 1 that the minimum thickness required to block the implant
is 4250.

a) b)

Figure 2 SRIM Simulation Ion Implant 50 KeV through 6500A of Silicon dioxide a) Phosphorus b) Boron

1
Exercise 2:

Figure 3 Overlay of Boron and Phosphorus implant simulation in default and BCA implant model

A screen oxide of 250 was deposited; ion implant was performed with Boron and Phosphorus of dose 4e15
ions/cm2. Because of the Lower energy of Boron implant the junction depth was found to be lower than the
previous simulation, Phosphorus appears to have higher junction depth than Boron as expected because of the
increased energy. If Phosphorus was implanted at 35kev then the junction depth would be expected to be lesser
because of the mass of Phosphorus, If the ion is heavier and the energy is lesser then the junction depth is
smaller, which could be observed, when comparing Boron and Phosphorus implant. Although, Boron has
15KeV energy than Phosphorus the junction depth closer to Phosphorus implant profile. Table 1 is the
compilation of the results of exercise 2.

Implant Energy Junction


Species
model (KeV) depth(m)
Boron SVDP 35 0.5875
Boron BCA 35 0.5428
Phosphorus SVDP 50 0.72
Phosphorus BCA 50 0.61

a) b)

Figure 4 SRIM Simulation Ion Implant 35KeV with 9999 atoms through 250 A of Silicon Dioxide a)Boron
b)Phosphorus

2
Exercise 3:

Figure 5 Overlay of SIMS profile after varying dose of ion implant, thickness of oxide and Orientation of silicon

Phosphorus was implanted at various dose, with and without oxide and in 111 and 100 orientation.
Amorphization occurs when the dose was 4e15 ions/cm2 and there would no amorphization when the dose was
1e12 ions/cm2, this is because of the crystal damage caused due to ionization. Amorphization leads to shorter
junction depth because of grain boundaries trying to slow down the ions. The presence of oxide decreased the
implant damage although the junction depth. The junction depth was observed to be higher in the 111 crystal
which could be because of channelling of the ion. Absence of the oxide also showed more channelling by
junction depth. The SIMS profile overlay shows the range of the ions and proves the above mentioned point.
The artefacts of the simulation could be seen in figure 5 with the abrupt drops in concentration of the profile.

Exercise 4:

a) b)

c) d)

Figure 6 Athena Simulation of ion implant with a Polysilicon mask after rotation of substrate with different dose
a)1e12 ions/cm2 rotation 0 b)1e12 ions/cm2 rotation -45 c)4e15 ions/cm2 rotation 0 d)4e15 ions/cm2 rotation -45

3
When the rotation is at default, the implant is performed at the 110 direction which is parallel to the flat of the
wafer whereas at 0 rotation, it is implanted at 100 direction. The idea of the exercise was to observe a deeper
junction when the substrate is rotated by 45, but instead pockets of ions were observed, these are artefacts of
simulation. The clusters of ions could indicate the loss of energy after travelling a distance. The pocket of ions
could be avoided by increasing the number if ions in the simulation.