Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Multiscale Approach for the Analysis of Channeling Profile Measurements of Ion Implantation Damage G. Hobler, G. Otto, D. Kovac L. Palmetshofer 1, K. Mayerhofer²,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Multiscale Approach for the Analysis of Channeling Profile Measurements of Ion Implantation Damage G. Hobler, G. Otto, D. Kovac L. Palmetshofer 1, K. Mayerhofer²,"— Presentation transcript:

1 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 Institute of Solid-State Electronics

2 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

3 Overview Introduction BC-kLMC approach Application to channeling profile measurement (CPM) experiments

4 Damage Measurements RBS Channeling profile

5 Channeling Implantations Fit dose dependence of channeling implantation profiles  recombination factor f rec =0.125 N sat =4  cm -2 (G.Hobler et al., J. Vac. Sci. Technol B14 (1) 272, 1996)

6 Channeling Profile Measurements Measure pre-existing crystal damage with a low-dose channeling implant (M. Giles et al., MRS Symp. Proc. 469, 253, 1997)

7 The Role of Dynamic Annealing in Si Temperature dependence of implant damage: (J.E. Westmoreland et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 15, 308, 1969)

8 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

9 Overview Introduction BC-kLMC approach Application to channeling profile measurement (CPM) experiments

10 Coupled BC-kLMC Approach Traditional approach: BUT: type and amount of defects influence BC trajectories (dechanneling) kLMC BC loop over cascades 1 cascade point defects point defects + clusters

11 Coupled BC-kLMC Approach Proposed new approach: kLMC BC loop over cascades old defects + new point defects point defects + clusters atom positions for each defect defects

12 Details of kLMC Each defect is associated with one or more lattice sites Defects: V n, I n (n=1,2,3,...) Events: –Diffusion hops (I, V) –Reactions of defects located within capture radius V n +V  V n+1 V n +I  V n-1 I n +I  I n+1 I n +V  I n-1 Parameters: –D V =3  cm²/s D I =6.35  cm²/s –(Capture radii)

13 Details of kLMC „Old“ defects: restricted to column (periodic boundary conditions) „New“ defects: anywhere Interaction between „new“ and „old“ defects: Using periodicity of „old“ defects

14 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)

15 Overview Introduction BC-kLMC approach Application to channeling profile measurement (CPM) experiments

16 CPM Experiments Damage implant: N, 30 keV, 3  cm - ², 10° tilt CPM implant: B, 30 keV, cm -2, 0° tilt shield (110)-Si

17 CPM Experiments Results :

18 CPM Simulation Results Simulation results without strain:

19 CPM Simulation Results Strain from vacancies:

20 CPM Simulation Results Strain from interstitials:

21 What is wrong? Defects: V n, I n (n=1,2,3,...) Events: –Diffusion hops (I, V) –Reactions of defects located within capture radius V n +V  V n+1 V n +I  V n-1 I n +I  I n+1 I n +V  I n-1 Parameters: –D V =3  cm²/s D I =6.35  cm²/s –(Capture radii) Lack of amorphous pockets?

22 What is wrong? Defects: V n, I n (n=1,2,3,...) Events: –Diffusion hops (I, V) –Reactions of defects located within capture radius V n +V  V n+1 V n +I  V n-1 I n +I  I n+1 I n +V  I n-1 Parameters: –D V =3  cm²/s D I =6.35  cm²/s –(Capture radii) Lack of amorphous pockets? NO Approximate treatment of I-Clusters?

23 What is wrong? I-Clusters: Similar study on RBS-C: Efficiency of I 2, I 3, I 4 within  40% of split-  110  interstitial I I2I2 I3I3 I 4a I 4b (G. Lulli et al., Phys. Rev. B69, , 2004)

24 What is wrong? Defects: V n, I n (n=1,2,3,...) Events: –Diffusion hops (I, V) –Reactions of defects located within capture radius V n +V  V n+1 V n +I  V n-1 I n +I  I n+1 I n +V  I n-1 Parameters: –D V =3  cm²/s D I =6.35  cm²/s –(Capture radii) Lack of amorphous pockets? NO Approximate treatment of I-Clusters? Probably not Attraction of I+V n, V+I n and/or Repulsion of I+I n, V+V n

25 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


Download ppt "Multiscale Approach for the Analysis of Channeling Profile Measurements of Ion Implantation Damage G. Hobler, G. Otto, D. Kovac L. Palmetshofer 1, K. Mayerhofer²,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google