Designing a simple implantor utilizing Simion

Anthony Liang

Abstract

Design a simple implantor using Simion and achieved some

key functions and requirements within the specs of typical im-
plantors. The current model is presented and few prob-
lems and solutions we encountered and deviced are discussed.
2. Cause of ion energy spread
In the first version source, ions born in a region that has a big PE
slope. This gives rise to an undesirable broad distribution of ion’s
KE. Only a small fraction will make it through the energy selection.
Throughput is low. Bernas source has flatter energy contour, giving
rise to very uniform energy. See the PE contour below for compari-
son.
1.5 Impant analysis at the wafer
We want to know the characteristics of our implantor. What’s the per-
centage of the ions making through. What is the energy dispersion of
those ions arriving at the wafer. What’s the beam divergence. In simula-
tion that means we need a counter or some sort to capture and analyze
the ions at the wafer location. In simion we investigated two methods.
1. Use Simion recording function “REC” to record data that hit x=900
mm (where the implated wafer is at) to a ascii dat file. Then use
Python to analyze the energy spread, the mean and std. For exam-
ple with our 1st-version source, energy dispersion showed a mean
of 2080.377200 eV and a std of 200.266358 eV. But with this method
we have no constraint over y and z. It is an infinite planar counter.

Also because of this, the kinetic energies of the ions will in fact be
slightly lower than we expect when they enter the ESA. So when us-
ing the ESA’s formula to calculate the ion KE you need to add a bit
more, otherwise ions will not make a perfect 90 degree turn. (nomi-
nal 1107, actual 1147)
3. previous Bernas source with only two extraction lenses
2. A counter.pa and a counter.prg (simion user program language) to
count the ions arriving within a 1 cm x 1 cm x 10 cm volume. 20
out of 500 ions borned in the source will make to this region. That’s
abour 5 % ratio. But to get energies of these ions we have to add
to the counter.prg the code of getting KE, and here I haven’t suc-
ceeded.

1. Closeup

1.1 Source
Source is where the ions are born. In our case the source determines
With
the KE of the ion beam, thus determines the implant energy. For a start
this method we can look at the spacial distribution of dopant beam
we choose Boron as the implant element. Neutral Boron gas mixed
Although this source gives a beam that’s less divergent, making it within the region.
with an inert gas are injected into the source and then ionized by elec-
easier for the entrance einsel to focus, and entrance einsel voltage
tron bombardment (with a hot wire filament, not shown here). And the
is down to 8200 from previous 12000, voltage is still way too high.
acceleration potential is 2 KeV, so this will be the implant energy.

1.3 ESA
Electric static analyzer is our first candidate as the energy selector.
1.1.1 A modified Bernas source
Only the ions with correct KE will make through.
After few iterations the current source is a Bernas source with exit ein-
sel lenses to give a more paralell beam. Adding three more lenses to
the bernas source gives us a very convergnet beam.
Total numbers of ion by default is 500. To increase the number one
has to change memory allocation of simion. I shall try this later.
To analyzie the randomness of our beam, we can perform moment
analysis in this couter region. But we need more ions. Or I can run
multiple 500-ions simulation and combine the results. This shall be
done later. The thing is the beam will not be perfectly uniform espe-
cially after deflecting/scanning. It can have skewness.

1.6 Space charge effect

1.3.1 Unwanted focusing in ESA In Simion it is easy to turn on space charge effect, but to run it on 500
ions take some computer power and it takes time. The effect is not
Previously due to the highly divergent beam coming out of source, ions substantial.
A closeup of the new source. closer to the positive ESA electrode have to climb more and lose more
KE to PE than ions closer to the negative electrode. So ideally ions
should be right in the middle. The new source put the beam in the
center region before entering ESA.

2. Comparison to typical specs

commercial 1st version current simulation

Energy integraty(dispersion) <1% 10% 1.6%

Beam angle integraty <1% >10° 5.7° (dispersion angle)

Dopant Species B,BF2 , P, As, ... B B

Energy range 0.25 keV~3 MeV 2 keV 1~2 keV

1.2 A random ion generator Implant angle range 0 ∼ 60° ~5° 6°

Numbers quoted from “Handbook of Semiconductor Manufacturing

It is paramount to have a
source as real as possible,
so that the simulation is as
close as the reality. That
means random ions. To ran-
domize the ion’s parameters,
Simion’s ion definition inter-
face and user program (.prg)
are tried. Both methods ran
short in the long run. I found it
easier to use python to code a
physical model and then save
the results to .ION file (simion
ion definition file), then load
it in Simion. Our physical
1.2.1 Previous problems and solutions
1. The first version of our source gave a huge divergent beam. This
caused the voltage on the einsel to be surreally high and the physi-
cal size of the einsel to be large.
model is a thermalized (fol-
lowing Maxwell distribution)
gas at 300 Kelvin ionized by
electron bombarbment. I as-
sumed the ionization process
does not alter the speed dis-
tribution. It could be wrong.
Monte Carlo process is used
to select the random veloc-
ity. Note that the speed of a
gas at 300 K is nothing com-
pared to the KeV potential en-
ergy ions later gain from any
voltage plates. So maybe one
can set all the speed to zero?
But there is space charge ef-
fect that we will discuss in the
end. See suplement material
for the python code of ram-
domization.
1.4 Deflector
It is common to deflect and scan the dopant ion beam to cover the entire
silicon wafter, so an ion deflector is required. At first I used four-plate
deflector, hoping to have control in both x-y directions within one unit.
But turned out it has non-uniform defocusing effect. Then I switched to
a two-plate deflector.
Technology 2nd Edition Yoshio Nishi, Robert Doering CRC Press Pub-
lished July 9, 2007”
3. Exploiting the textbook
Source/Drain regions typically require a dopant dosage density of 1019
cm−3. From the implant theory, ion implantation gives rise to a roughly
Guassian distribution, sometimes with tails. To get total number of ions
needed for implantation so that the interested area has the required
dopant density, we sum over the whole Gaussian area. An easy esti-
mation is σ×height, σ half width at half maximum. So 1019cm−3 ×60nm ∼
6 × 1013cm−2. This is within the specs of a typical implantor. To get the
according beam current with such number of ions, we take into account
the ion implanting velocity from our simulation (4224 ms ). Total current
per cm2= q × v × total dosage = 1.6 × 10−19Coulomb × 4224 × 6 × 1013 =
10−3(Amp per cm2). This also falls within specs. If we say it takes 10
minutes for our source to generate enough ions, then per second beam
Total number of ions 6×1013
flux will be = 10×60 = 1011cm−2s−1. This corresponds
implant time
to the number of streamlines needed in Simion simulation, because in
simulation ions all born at the same time. Beam flux tells how focus the
beam is. On the other hand, density of the beam can also be useful.
Say 10 minutes to reach dosage level, then ion density we need at the
Total number of ions 6×1013
implant point is implant time×velocity = 10×60×4224 = 2 × 105cm−3.
4. Conclusion and Outlook
1. add slit and grid 3. depth issue ( please refer to supplement) dopant-coated filament is used? Other ways to fix this?
4. I assume the ionization process is done by electron bombardment • a folder containing all the pictures and the name labels of the avail-
2. Most frindge fields are considered, except ESA’s. with a electron generating filament. But maybe this problem is why able ion optics we created. so i don’t lose track.