<%BANNER%>

Investigation of Process Fabrication for Low-Noise P-Type Diffused Piezoresistors

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022606/00001

Material Information

Title: Investigation of Process Fabrication for Low-Noise P-Type Diffused Piezoresistors
Physical Description: 1 online resource (180 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Dieme, Robert
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: cross, defect, hfcv, interface, low, noise, piezoresistor, plant, tem
Electrical and Computer Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Electrical and Computer Engineering thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: INVESTIGATION OF PROCESS FABRICATION FOR LOW-NOISE P-TYPE DIFFUSED PIEZORESISTORS The geometry and process dependence of 1/f noise in p-type piezoresistors was systematically investigated in this work. P-type piezoresistors were fabricated with 20 keV boron implants, 40keV boron implants with implant oxide, and solid-source diffusion and varying isochronal 900C inert anneals on test-structures of different surface area and volume. The devices were characterized electrically using I-V, C-V, and power spectral density noise measurements. The defects were visualized using cross-section (XTEM) and plane view TEM (PTEM). In addition, the influence of carrier number on piezoresistors 1/f noise was investigated. For the first time, the measured 1/f noise in piezoresistors is systematically compared to bulk defect densities measured with TEM and interface trap densities from HFCV after each annealing condition of the piezoresistors. For p-type piezoresistors implanted with 20 keV boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose and isochronally annealed at 900C for varying times in inert N2 followed by a short dry/wet/dry oxidation at the same temperature, increasing inert anneals resulted in decreasing 1/f noise as well as bulk defect densities measured by PTEM. A decrease of the 1/f noise and bulk defect densities with increased annealing times was also observed on p-type piezoresistors implanted with 40 keV boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose through 0.1 microm of SiO2 with only inert anneal at 900 C. However, for the p-type piezoresistors implanted with 40 keV boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose through 0.1 microm of SiO2 with inert anneal and additional dry/wet/dry oxidation, increased 1/f noise was observed with increased inert anneal time (10 min versus 30 min) at 900 C although the bulk trap density decreased. From TEM, it appeared that the PSDs of the piezoresistors implanted with 40 keV boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose through 0.1 microm of SiO2 with inert anneal and oxidation track the faulted loop areas. A phosphorous counter-doped solid-source diffused p-type piezoresistor had less noise than the boron-only solid-source diffused piezoresistor which is attributed to the boron centroid further from the Si/SiO2 interface.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Robert Dieme.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Nishida, Toshikazu.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0022606:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022606/00001

Material Information

Title: Investigation of Process Fabrication for Low-Noise P-Type Diffused Piezoresistors
Physical Description: 1 online resource (180 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Dieme, Robert
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: cross, defect, hfcv, interface, low, noise, piezoresistor, plant, tem
Electrical and Computer Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Electrical and Computer Engineering thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: INVESTIGATION OF PROCESS FABRICATION FOR LOW-NOISE P-TYPE DIFFUSED PIEZORESISTORS The geometry and process dependence of 1/f noise in p-type piezoresistors was systematically investigated in this work. P-type piezoresistors were fabricated with 20 keV boron implants, 40keV boron implants with implant oxide, and solid-source diffusion and varying isochronal 900C inert anneals on test-structures of different surface area and volume. The devices were characterized electrically using I-V, C-V, and power spectral density noise measurements. The defects were visualized using cross-section (XTEM) and plane view TEM (PTEM). In addition, the influence of carrier number on piezoresistors 1/f noise was investigated. For the first time, the measured 1/f noise in piezoresistors is systematically compared to bulk defect densities measured with TEM and interface trap densities from HFCV after each annealing condition of the piezoresistors. For p-type piezoresistors implanted with 20 keV boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose and isochronally annealed at 900C for varying times in inert N2 followed by a short dry/wet/dry oxidation at the same temperature, increasing inert anneals resulted in decreasing 1/f noise as well as bulk defect densities measured by PTEM. A decrease of the 1/f noise and bulk defect densities with increased annealing times was also observed on p-type piezoresistors implanted with 40 keV boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose through 0.1 microm of SiO2 with only inert anneal at 900 C. However, for the p-type piezoresistors implanted with 40 keV boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose through 0.1 microm of SiO2 with inert anneal and additional dry/wet/dry oxidation, increased 1/f noise was observed with increased inert anneal time (10 min versus 30 min) at 900 C although the bulk trap density decreased. From TEM, it appeared that the PSDs of the piezoresistors implanted with 40 keV boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose through 0.1 microm of SiO2 with inert anneal and oxidation track the faulted loop areas. A phosphorous counter-doped solid-source diffused p-type piezoresistor had less noise than the boron-only solid-source diffused piezoresistor which is attributed to the boron centroid further from the Si/SiO2 interface.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Robert Dieme.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Nishida, Toshikazu.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0022606:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

INVESTIGATION OF PROCESS FABRICATION FOR LOW-NOISE P-TYPE DIFFUSED PIEZORESISTORS By ROBERT DIEME A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Robert Dim 2

PAGE 3

To my father and mother. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Toshikazu Nishida, for his guidance and encouragement. I also would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Ma rk Sheplak, Dr. Gijs Bosman, and Dr. Kevin Jones, for their ideas and encouragement. I would also like to thank Dr. Louis N. Cattafesta III for help with my experime nts. I also thank Brya n L. Zachary, Nicholas G. Rudawski, Jack Y. Zhang, and all Interdisciplinary Microsystems Group (IMG) students for their help and support. I thank my father, mother, brother, sisters, and friends for their prayers, support, and encouragement through my study. Special thanks go to Rev. John D. Gillespie for his advice and all the people at St. Augustine Church. Finally, I thank God for all of the grace He gives me. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................11 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .19 1.1 Motivation.....................................................................................................................19 1.2 Objective an d Outline...................................................................................................20 2 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... .22 2.1 Test Vehicle: Piezoresistor............................................................................................22 2.1.1 Computation of Piezoresistor Resistance under Non-Degenerate Approximation..................................................................................................23 2.1.1.1 Resistance computation with uniform carrier concentration under non-degenerate approximation...........................................................24 2.1.1.2 Resistance computation with non-uniform carrier concentration under non-degenerate approximation.................................................24 2.2 MEMS Piezoresistive Microphone...............................................................................26 2.2.1 MEMS piezoresistive Mi crophone Voltage Output..........................................26 2.2.2 MEMS Piezoresistive Microphone Sensitivity.................................................27 2.2.3 MEMS Piezoresistive Microphone Minimum Detectable Signal.....................27 2.3 Noise and Noise Power Spectral Density......................................................................28 2.4 Noise Sources in Piezoresistor......................................................................................29 2.4.1 Electrical Thermal Noise...................................................................................29 2.4.2 Mechanical Thermal Noise...............................................................................30 2.4.3 Low Frequency Noise.......................................................................................30 2.4.3.1 Hooges model....................................................................................31 2.4.3.2 McWhorters model............................................................................32 2.4.4 Shot Noise.........................................................................................................33 2.5 Defects in Semiconductors............................................................................................34 2.5.1 Bulk Defects......................................................................................................34 2.5.2 Interface Traps..................................................................................................35 2.6 Process Dependence of 1 /f Noise..................................................................................36 2.7 Summary.......................................................................................................................38 5

PAGE 6

3 PIEZORESISTOR DESIGN..................................................................................................41 3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 41 3.1.1 Piezoresistor Design with Un iform Doping Concentration..............................41 3.1.2 Piezoresistor Design with Gaussian Non-Uniform Doping Concentration......42 3.1.3 Fabrication Non-Idealities.................................................................................43 3.1.3.1 Transient enhanced diffusion (TED)..................................................43 3.1.3.2 Oxidation enhanced diffusion (OED).................................................44 3.1.3.3 Impurity segregation...........................................................................44 3.1.4 Fundamental Physics That Affect El ectrical Activation of Impurities.............45 3.2 Piezoresistor Design Parameters...................................................................................47 3.2.1 Piezoresistor Impurity Profile...........................................................................47 3.2.2 Piezoresistor Resistance....................................................................................47 3.2.3 Piezoresistor Surface Area................................................................................48 3.2.4 Piezoresistor Volume........................................................................................48 3.3 Test Structures Design..................................................................................................48 3.4 Boron Profile Simulations.............................................................................................49 3.4.1 Analytical Calculation.......................................................................................49 3.4.2 Limited Source Diffusion: Ion Implantation.....................................................49 3.4.3 Annealing After Ion implantation.....................................................................50 3.4.5 Florida Object Oriented Pr ocess Simulator (FLOOPS)....................................51 3.4.5.1 Simplest FLOOPS (Fermi model)......................................................52 3.4.5.2 More accurate FLOOPS (Pair model)................................................52 3.5 P-type Piezoresistor Implant and Annealing Condition................................................52 3.5.1 Piezoresistor Generation 1 (PG1)......................................................................52 3.5.2 Piezoresistor Generation 2 (PG2)......................................................................54 3.5.2.1 Boron implanted piezoresistors at 20 keV with a dose 7x1014 cm-2...55 3.5.2.2 Boron implanted piezoresistors at 40 keV with a dose 7x1014 cm-2 through SiO2.......................................................................................56 3.5.2.3 Boron solid source diffused piezo resistors for 25 min at 950 C.........56 3.5.2.4 Boron solid source diffused piezo resistors for 25 min at 950 C followed by phosphorus solid source diffusion for 5 min at 800 C....57 3.6 Additional Test Structures.............................................................................................57 3.6.1 P-type Capacitor................................................................................................57 3.6.2 P/N Diode..........................................................................................................58 3.6.3 Van der Pauw Structure....................................................................................59 3.6.4 Carrier Concentration Test Structures...............................................................59 3.6.4.1 Spreading resistance technique...........................................................60 3.6.4.2 Secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) technique.........................60 3.6.4.3 Capacitance-voltage technique...........................................................60 3.6.4.4 Hall measurement technique...............................................................61 3.7 Summary.......................................................................................................................62 4 EXPERIMENTAL METHOD................................................................................................78 4.1 Piezoresistor Expe rimental Methods.............................................................................78 4.1.1 Piezoresistor I-V Measurement.........................................................................78 6

PAGE 7

4.1.2 Piezoresistor Noise Measurements...................................................................79 4.1.2.1 Noise measurement setup...................................................................79 4.1.2.2 Equipment setting for noise PSD measurement.................................80 4.1.2.3 Noise power spectral density extraction.............................................80 4.2 P/N Diode Experimental Method..................................................................................82 4.2.1 P/N Diode DC Current-Voltage........................................................................82 4.2.2 P/N Diode Shot Noise Measurement................................................................82 4.2.2.1 P/N diode noise measurement setup...................................................82 4.2.2.2 Shot noise power spectral density extraction......................................83 4.3 P-Type Capacitor Experimental Method......................................................................83 4.4 Transmission Electron Microscopy...............................................................................85 4.5 Van Der Pauw Structure...............................................................................................86 4.5.1 Sheet Resistance................................................................................................86 4.5.2 Line Width........................................................................................................86 4.5.3 Contact Resistance............................................................................................87 4.6 Hall Effect Measurement..............................................................................................87 4.7 Summary.......................................................................................................................87 5 FABRICATION AND MEASUREMENT RESULTS..........................................................91 5.1 Implantation, Solid-Source, and A nnealing of Test Structures.....................................91 5.2 Characterization of Fabri cated Test Structures.............................................................92 5.2.1 Piezoresistor Test Structures.............................................................................92 5.2.2 P-type Capacitor Test Structure........................................................................94 5.2.3 P/N Diode Test Structure..................................................................................95 5.2.4 Van der Pauw Test Structure............................................................................95 5.2.5 Hall Effect Test Structure..................................................................................96 5.3 Investigation of Process Dependence of 1 /F Noise......................................................97 5.3.1 Noise PSD of piezoresistors R6 for B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, and 7o tilt...........98 5.3.2 Noise PSD of piezoresistors R6 for B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 101 5.3.3 Noise PSD of solid-source diffused piezoresistors R9 of wafers C1 and C2.102 5.4 Hooge Parameter and 1 /F Noise Analysis and Discussion.........................................103 5.5 Shot Noise Measurements...........................................................................................104 5.6 Number of Carrier Dependence of 1 /F Noise.............................................................105 5.6.1 Fabrication and Measuremen ts of Test Structures..........................................105 5.6.1 Noise PSD Measurements...............................................................................106 5.6.2 Analysis and Discussion.................................................................................107 5.7 Summary.....................................................................................................................108 6 DEFECTS MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS.............................................................134 6.2 Bulk Defects in Piezoresistors....................................................................................134 6.2.1 Cross-Section Transmission El ectron Microscopy (XTEM)..........................134 6.2.2 Plan View Transmission Electron Microscopy (PTEM)................................135 6.3 Interface Trap Density.................................................................................................136 6.4 Correlation of Noise Volta ge PSD to Defects............................................................137 7

PAGE 8

6.4.1 Noise Voltage PSD of 20 keV Boron Im planted Piezoresistors and Defects.137 6.4.2 Noise Voltage PSD of 40 keV Boron Implanted Piezoresistors through 0.1 m of SiO2 and Defects..................................................................................138 6.4.3 Noise Voltage PSD of Solid Source Diffused Piezoresistors and Interface Traps 140 6.5 Summary.....................................................................................................................140 7 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK.............................................................................154 APPENDIX A PIEZORESISTIVITY...........................................................................................................15 7 B MEMS PIEZORESISTIVE MICROPHONE VOLTAGE OUTPUT..................................160 C DIFFRENCE BETWEEN HOOGE AND MCWHORTER 1/F NOISE MODEL..............162 D PROCESS FLOW................................................................................................................. 165 D.1 Generation 1 Process...................................................................................................165 D.2 Generation 2 Process...................................................................................................169 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................175 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................180 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Wafer characteristics used to fabr icate test structures generation 1..................................63 3-2 Process steps for piezoresistor test structures generation 1...............................................63 3-3 Wafer characteristics used to fabr icate test structures generation 2..................................63 3-4 Process steps for piezoresistor test structures generation 2...............................................64 3-5 Implant and annealing conditions of test structures generation 1......................................64 3-6 Dimensions, surface area, and volume of piezoresistors assuming uniform doping profile.................................................................................................................................65 4-1 Low-noise preamplifier SRS 560 setting...........................................................................89 4-2 Spectrum analyzer SRS 785 setting...................................................................................89 5-1 Resistance of piezoresistor s of generation 2 process.......................................................110 5-2 The junction depths and surface concentr ations of SIMS profiles of generation 2 process..............................................................................................................................110 5-3 Dimensions of the pMOSC1 and pMOSC2 of generation 2 process...............................110 5-4 Measured oxide thicknesses with Ellipsometer and pMOSC C-V of generation 2 process..............................................................................................................................111 5-5 Dimensions of the three P/N diodes of generation 2 process..........................................111 5-6 MeasuredS R and W C R of generation 2 processes....................................................111 5-7 Computed electrical active dose, implanted dose, Q, and fraction of active dose AAN AANQ for each generation 2 process.............................................................................112 5-8 Hooge parameters of each of the three piezoresistors of process 2A (B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt and 5 min dry, 5 min we t and 10 min dry at 900 C).........................112 5-9 Hooge parameter using number of carrier obtained from Hall Effect measurements of generation 2 process....................................................................................................112 5-10 Resistance of fabricated junction isolat ed piezoresistors of generation 1 process..........113 6-1 Slopes of regression lines and the 95 % confidence intervals.........................................142 9

PAGE 10

6-2 Line length, loop area, and faulted loop area of the B 20 keV and 40 keV with inert anneal and oxidation........................................................................................................142 A-1 Piezoresistive coefficients of silicon................................................................................159 A-2 Transverse and longitudinal piezoresistance coefficients of silicon for <110> direction...........................................................................................................................159 10

PAGE 11

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Piezoresistor A) plan view B) cross-section......................................................................39 2-2 Piezoresistors configured in Wheatstone bridge................................................................39 2-3 Trapping-detrapping model for 1 /f noise. A) Energy band diagram of trapping and detrapping at two trap levels, B) Lorent zian spectrum of two trap levels in comparison with thermal noise..........................................................................................40 2-4 Category I damage adapted from Jones et al. ................................................................40 3-1 Piezoresistor A) top view and B) cross-section.................................................................65 3-2 Uniform doping concentration...........................................................................................66 3-3 Non-uniform doping concentr ation (Gaussian Profile).....................................................66 3-4 Illustration of boron profiles when seconda ry effect such segregation (A) oxidation enhance diffusion (B), transient enhanced diffusion (C) are present during processing and comparison of a Gaussian profile with and a non-ideal bor on distribution (D)..........67 3-5 Piezoresistors with same sheet resist ance, but different number of squares and resistance............................................................................................................................67 3-6 Piezoresistors with same resistance, different surface area and same number of square.................................................................................................................................68 3-7 Simulated boron profile for piezoresistor generation 1.....................................................68 3-8 Piezoresistors test structures A1) Piezoresistor 7, A2) Piezoresistor 8, A3) piezoresistor 9 and B) piezo resistor cross-section.............................................................69 3-9 Boron 20 keV implanted-sili con and anneal flow chart....................................................70 3-10 Boron, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7tilt implant and anneal 1 (Dt1).........................................70 3-11 Boron, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7tilt implant and anneal 2 (Dt2).........................................71 3-12 Boron, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7tilt implant and anneal 3 (Dt3).........................................71 3-13 Boron 40 keV implanted-sili con and anneal flow chart....................................................72 3-14 Boron, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 0tilt implant and anneal 1 (Dt1).........................................72 3-15 Boron, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 0tilt implant and anneal 2 (Dt2).........................................73 11

PAGE 12

3-16 Boron, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 0tilt implant and anneal 3 (Dt3).........................................73 3-17 Boron, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 0tilt implant and anneal 4 (Dt4).........................................74 3-18 Boron solid source diffusion in n-silicon and anneal flow chart.......................................74 3-19 Analytical calculation of boron solid sour ce diffusion in n-silicon and anneal 3 (Dt3)....75 3-20 Boron and Phosphorus solid source diffusions in n-silicon and anneal flow chart...........75 3-21 Capacitor layout A) plan view and B) cross-section.........................................................76 3-22 P/N diode layout A) plan view and B) cross-section.........................................................76 3-23 Plan view of a Van der Pauw structure..............................................................................77 3-24 Hall Effect structure A) plan view and B) cross-section...................................................77 4-1 Piezoresistor noise measurement A) setup and B) small circuit noise representation.......89 4-2 Diode noise measurement A) setup and B) small circ uit noise repr esentation..................90 4-3 Capacitance-Voltage measurement setup adapter from Sah..............................................90 5-1 As-implant profiles of boron with B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt of generation 2 process..............................................................................................................................113 5-2 As-implant profiles of boron with B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 of generation 2 process.........................................................................................................114 5-3 SIMS profiles of wafers with B, 20 keV, 7e14 cm-2, 7o tilt of generation 2 process.......114 5-4 SIMS profiles of wafers with B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 of generation 2 process.........................................................................................................115 5-5 SIMS profiles of solid-source diffused wa fers C1 and C2 of generation 2 process........115 5-6 Piezoresistor test structur e 9 of generation 2 process......................................................116 5-7 C-V measurement of pMOSC2 of wafer 2E of generation 2 process..............................116 5-8 I-V characteristics of Resistor 6, Diode 1 and Diode 2 of process 1A of generation 2 process..............................................................................................................................117 5-9 Logarithmic scale of the forward bi as Diode 1 of generation 2 process.........................117 5-10 Reverse bias current of the forward bias Diode 1 of generation 2 process......................118 12

PAGE 13

5-11 Sheet hall coefficientSH R for the B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt implanted piezoresistors of generation 2 process.............................................................................118 5-12 Sheet hall coefficientSH R for the B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 implanted piezoresistors subjected to only inert annealing of generation 2 process.......119 5-13 Sheet hall coefficientSH R for the B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 implanted piezoresistors subjected to iner t annealing and oxidation of generation 2 process..............................................................................................................................119 5-14 Sheet hall coefficientSH R for the solid source diffused piezoresistors of generation 2 process..............................................................................................................................120 5-15 I-V characteristic of resistor 6 of wafer 2A of generation 2 process...............................120 5-16 Noise voltage PSD of piezoresistor R6 of wafer 2A of generation 2 process.................121 5-17 Noise voltage average PSD of three piezo resistors R6 of wafer 2A of generation 2 process..............................................................................................................................121 5-18 Noise voltage PSDs average of three piezo resistors R6 of wafer 2A, 2E, and 1A of generation 2 process.........................................................................................................122 5-19 PSDs and their uncertainties of three different piezoresis tors of .process 2A (B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C).................122 5-20 The fitted lines of the three PSDs of process 2A (B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C)..................................................................123 5-21 Noise voltage average PSDs of three pi ezoresistors R6 of wafer 2B and 5A of generation 2 process.........................................................................................................123 5-22 Noise voltage average PSDs of three pi ezoresistors R6 of wafer 3E and 4A of generation 2 process.........................................................................................................124 5-23 I-V characteristic of pi ezoresistor R9 of wafer C1 of generation 2 process....................124 5-24 I-V characteristic of pi ezoresistor R9 of wafer C2 of generation 2 process....................125 5-25 Noise voltage average PSDs of three pi ezoresistors R9 of wafer C1 and C2 of generation 2 process.........................................................................................................125 5-26 Noise voltage PSDs of C1 and C2 with N of C2 used for C1 at 1Hz of generation 2 process..............................................................................................................................126 5-27 Resistor geometry before and after di ffusion, A) plan-view and B) cross-section..........126 13

PAGE 14

5-28 Shot noise of resistor 6 of process 1A of generation 2 of generation 2 process..............127 5-29 Top views of piezoresistors test struct ures 7 A1), 8 A2) and 9 A3) and a crosssection B) of generation 1 process...................................................................................128 5-30 Secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) obtained from Evans Analytical Group for the fabricated piezoresistor s of generation 1 process......................................................128 5-31 I-V characteristic of piezoresis tor R1B1W of generation 1 process................................129 5-32 Noise voltage PSD of R1B1 W of generation 1 process..................................................129 5-33 I-V characteristic of piezoresis tor R3A12E of generation 1 process...............................130 5-34 Noise voltage PSD of R3A 12E of generation 1 process..................................................130 5-35 I-V characteristic of junction isolated piezoresistor test structure 1 (R1B1W) of generation 1 process.........................................................................................................131 5-36 Shot noise of piezoresistor test structure 1(R1B1W) of generation 1 process................131 5-37 Noise voltage PSD of piezoresistor test structure 1 (R1B1W) a nd piezoresistor test structure 12 (R3A12E) are biased re spectively at 1.49 Vdc and 1.48 Vdc of generation 1 process.........................................................................................................132 5-38 Noise measurement PSDs A) of piezoresistors123, and R RR at same voltage and B) of number of carriers of piezoresistors123, and R RR at same voltage of generation 1 process..............................................................................................................................133 6-1 Focus ion beam (FIB) on a piezoresistor test structure....................................................142 6-2 The XTEM of piezoresistor implanted with B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 of generation 2 process, A) 2A, B) 2E, C) 1A..........................................................................................143 6-3 XTEM of piezoresistor generati on 2 implanted with B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 of generation 2 process, A) 2B, B) 3E, C) 4A), D) 5A..........................143 6-4 The XTEM of piezoresistor A) solid s ource diffusions of B, 25 min, 950 C, B) solid source diffusions of B, 25 min, 950 C and P, 5 min, 800 C of generation 2 process......144 6-5 Ten PTEM pictures for process 2A of generation 2 process, implanted with B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 and annealed for 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C........144 6-6 PTEM of the 20 keV implanted test structures A) 2A, B) 2E, C) 1A.............................145 6-7 PTEM of the 40 keV implan ted test structures A) 2B B) 3E, C) 4A, D) 5A..................145 14

PAGE 15

6-8 Defects densities as a func tion of anneal time of the 20 keV implanted test structures of generation 2 process....................................................................................................146 6-9 Regression line of the defect densit y versus annealing time for the B 20 keV...............146 6-10 Defects densities as a func tion of anneal time of the 40 keV implanted test structures with only inert anneal of generation 2 process................................................................147 6-11 Defects densities as a func tion of anneal time of the 40 keV implanted test structures with inert anneal and oxidation of generation 2 process..................................................147 6-12 PTEM of processes 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, through 0.1 m of SiO2., A) 3E (10 min in N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxidation at 900 C) and B) 4A (30 min in N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxidation at 900 C)...............................148 6-13 Surface terminated defects versus the annealing time of the 20 keV implanted test structures of generation 2 process....................................................................................148 6-14 Surface terminated defects versus the annealing time of the 40 keV implanted test structures with only inert anne al of generation 2 process................................................149 6-15 Surface terminated defects versus the annealing time of the 40 keV implanted test structures with inert anneal and oxidation of generation 2 process.................................149 6-16 Defects count versus loop size of the 20 keV implanted test structures of generation 2 process...........................................................................................................................150 6-17 Defects count versus loop size of the 40 ke V implanted test structures with only inert anneal of generation 2 process.........................................................................................150 6-18 Defects count versus loop size of the 40 keV implanted test structures with inert anneal and oxidation of generation 2 process..................................................................151 6-19 Measured and ideal high frequency C-V of process 2E, implanted with B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 and annealed for 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C, of generation 2 process..........................................................................151 6-20 Energy level versus the DIT of the 20 keV implanted test structures. of generation 2 process..............................................................................................................................152 6-21 Energy level versus the DIT of the 40 keV implanted test structures with only inert anneal of generation 2 process.........................................................................................152 6-22 Energy level versus the DIT of the 40 keV im planted test structures with inert anneal and oxidation of generation 2 process.............................................................................153 6-23 Energy level versus the DIT of the solid source diffused test structures of generation 2 process...........................................................................................................................153 15

PAGE 16

A-1 Polar plots of longitudinal A) and transv erse B) piezoresistance coefficients for ptype (100) silicon............................................................................................................. 159 16

PAGE 17

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy INVESTIGATION OF PROCESS FABRICATION FOR LOW-NOISE P-TYPE DIFFUSED PIEZORESISTORS By Robert Dim December 2009 Chair: Toshikazu Nishida Major: Electrical and Computer Engineering The geometry and process dependence of 1 /f noise in p-type piezoresistors was systematically investigated in this work. P-t ype piezoresistors were fa bricated with 20 keV boron implants, 40keV boron implants with impl ant oxide, and solid-source diffusion and varying isochronal 900C inert anneals on test-struc tures of different surface area and volume. The devices were characterized electrically using I-V, C-V, a nd power spectral density noise measurements. The defects were visualized using cross-section (XTEM) and plane view TEM (PTEM). In addition, the influence of carrier number on piezoresistors 1 /f noise was investigated. For the first time, the measured 1 /f noise in piezoresistors is systematically compared to bulk defect densities measured w ith TEM and interface trap densities from HFCV after each annealing condition of the piezoresistors. For p-type piezoresistors implanted with 20 keV boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose and isochronally annealed at 900C for varying times in inert N2 followed by a short dry/wet/dry oxidation at th e same temperature, increasing inert anneals resulted in decreasing 1/f noise as well as bulk defect dens ities measured by PTEM. A decrease of the 1 /f noise and bulk defect dens ities with increased anneali ng times was also observed on ptype piezoresistors implanted with 40 keV boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose through 0.1 m of SiO2 with only inert anneal at 900 C. However, for the p-type piezoresistors implanted with 40 keV 17

PAGE 18

boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose through 0.1 m of SiO2 with inert anneal and additional dry/wet/dry oxidation, increased 1 /f noise was observed with increased in ert anneal time (10 min versus 30 min) at 900 C although the bulk trap density decreas ed. From TEM, it appeared that the PSDs of the piezoresistors implanted with 40 keV boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose through 0.1 m of SiO2 with inert anneal and oxidation tr ack the faulted loop areas. A phosphorous counter-doped solidsource diffused p-type piezoresi stor had less noise than the boron-only solid-source diffused piezoresistor which is attributed to the boron centroid furt her from the Si/SiO2 interface. 18

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The trend in integrated circ uit (IC) technology is to fabr icate small size devices while focusing simultaneously on improving their performan ce, their reliability, and their affordability. In the field of integrated ci rcuits technology, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), also known as microsystems design, allo ws the fabrication of miniature systems such as sensors and actuators. These miniature system transducers used in field such as automotive, aeronautic, environmental, and medical are typically on the mi crometer scale. A few examples of miniature systems are piezoresistive pressure sensors, microphones, accelerometers, and cantilevers. Key specifications include sensitivity, linearity, freque ncy response, selectivity, and dynamic range. The latter specification refers to the range of input signal magnitudes that can be measured. It is not surprising that the fabrication process, ma terial properties, and geometric dimension have enormous effects on the MEMS performance, in particular the noise floor or minimum detectable signal. 1.1 Motivation Noise plays an important role in the performa nce of MEMS transducers since it determines the minimum signal that can be detected. For example, in the MEMS piezoresistive microphone, the minimum detectable signal (MDS) and the si gnal-to-noise ratio (S/N) can be reduced by improving the transducer sensitivity, reducing the noise, or both. The reduction of the noise generated from piezoresistors configured in a Wheatstone bridge can be achieved by understanding the physical phenomena that lead to its occurrence. For example, anecdotally, two piezoresistive microphones with the same diaphr agm geometry but different piezoresistor structure and process flow exhibited significantly different nois e characteristics. The first microphone employed dielectrically isolated 1x1018 cm-3 doped piezoresistor which underwent 19

PAGE 20

DRIE and high temperature anneal while the s econd piezoresistor used a junction isolated 1x1019 cm-3 doped piezoresistor with less high temperature anneal. With multiple differences, it is difficult to pinpoint the geometry trends and the annealing factor that a ffect the device noise. 1.2 Objective and Outline The objective of this work is to systematica lly investigate the dependencies of noise in piezoresistors geometry, passiva tion, and fabrication process. Such an understanding can facilitate the design of low-noise piezoresistiv e transducers such as microphones. Thus, we investigate low frequency noise through varyi ng the process fabrication (implant energy, annealing condition, and oxide thic kness) and geometry (surface a nd volume) of piezoresistors. In order to relate the noise to the physical defects in the silicon, techniques such as Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) are used for defect density analysis. Noise measurements on piezoresistors are analyzed, and the results are us ed to provide guidelines for the fabrication of low noise piezoresistors. The contributions of this work are first a syst ematic correlation of the noise voltage PSD to the bulk defects and surface traps of the piezoresis tors and second the effect of the number of carriers on 1 /f noise. The systematic corre lation of the noise voltage PSD to the bulk defects and surface traps is done by measuring the defects of ion implanted or solid source diffused piezoresistors at various implant s and anneals conditions, measured the noise voltage PSD of the piezoresistors after each ann ealing condition and correlated th e defects to the measured 1 /f noise. The effect of the number of carriers on 1 /f noise is studied in piezoresi stors with identical process fabrication. However some piezore sistors have same resistance and different volume while other piezoresistors have different resi stance and different volumes. In addition to the ion implanted piezoresistors, two different conditions of solid source diffused piezoresistors are used to study the effect of number of ca rriers and surface traps on the 1 /f noise. 20

PAGE 21

The dissertation is organized as follow; in chapter 2, we discuss the background of piezoresistors, piezoresistive microphone, noise source, defects in semiconductors and process dependence of 1 /f noise. In Chapter 3, the piezoresistor design of the test struct ures is presented. The experimental method is described in Chap ter 4 and is followed by the fabrication and measurement results in Chapter 5 and the defect measurement and analysis in Chapter 6. The conclusion and future work are discussed in Chapter 7. 21

PAGE 22

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND This chapter discusses the background for the motivation of this res earch. We start by presenting the strain sensitive resistive element (piezoresistor) that is employed for the noise investigation. An example of a piezoresistive MEMS microphone which uses piezoresistors for sensing pressure-induced diaphragm strain is briefly described. The effect of the noise on the performance of such a device is shown th rough the minimum detectable signal. The mathematical and physical foundation of noise, th e various noise sources, and potential defects that cause noise are discussed. We finally pres ent summaries of previous studies of noise in semiconductor devices. 2.1 Test Vehicle: Piezoresistor A piezoresistor is typically a p-type resistor made most commonly today via ionimplantation, which is based on the bombardmen t of foreign impurity species (boron) into a piezoresistive semiconductor material such as cr ystalline silicon. The property of a material, such as silicon, for which the resistivity changes when submitted to stress is called piezoresistivity. Piezoresistors play a critic al role in the non-energy conserving dissipative transduction of the strain signal from the mech anical domain to the electrical domain. This ability to change resistivity know n as the piezoresistive effect, gives rise to a much larger gauge factor in semiconductors (two orders of magnitude) than in metals. The relation between the resistivity and the applied stress is descri bed by the piezoresistanc e coefficients. The resistivity of a piezoresistor is expressed as follows; 1 cm qp (2-1) 22

PAGE 23

In the expression above, is the electronic charge, q is the carrier mobility, and is the carrier concentration. Additional information on piezoresistivity is given in Appendix A. p2.1.1 Computation of Piezoresistor Resist ance under Non-Degenerate Approximation The resistance of the piezoresistor is calcu lated in two ways: 1) for a uniform carrier concentration and 2) for a non-uniform carrier co ncentration. In both computations, we assume non-degenerate semiconductors. A semiconductor is said to be non-degenera te if the Fermi level is in the band gap at a distance of greater than3away from the conduction and valence band edges. In this case, the impurity concentra tion is low and the Fermi-Dirac distribution is approximated by the Boltzmans approximation as shown in Equation 2-2,38 kT 11FFEE EE kT kTfEee (2-2) where is the Fermi energy, is the Boltzmans constant, and Tis the temperature in Kelvin. Under this approximation, the el ectron and hole concentrations are given in Equation 2-3 and Equation 2-4.38 FEk CFEE kT CNNe (2-3) FVEE kT VPNe (2-4) CN and are respectively the e ffective densities of states in the conduction and valence bands. and are respectively th e conduction and valence band edges. VNCEVE 23

PAGE 24

2.1.1.1 Resistance computation with uniform ca rrier concentration under non-degenerate approximation The resistance of the piezoresistor is co mputed using Equation 2-5 shown below, jL R XW (2-5) where is the resistivity as shown in Equation 2-1, j X is the junction depth, L the piezoresistor length and W the piezoresistor width. This computation of the resistance is not very accurate because in reality the impuritie s are not uniformly distributed in the semiconductor after the implant and subsequent anneal and thermal oxi dation used to activate the impurities and grow the oxide layers. A better approximati on of the resistance is discussed next. 2.1.1.2 Resistance computation with non-uni form carrier concentration under nondegenerate approximation The sheet resistance of the piezoresistor fo r a non-uniform profile is computed using Equation 2-6,1 01 jS x BR qnxNnxdx (2-6) where is the impurity distribution, is background dopi ng concentration and nxBN nx is the mobility as a function of the impurity profile. Given an initial fixed or limited impurity dose th at is thermally driven in at temperature, T, a first approximation of the impurity profile is given by a Gaussian di stribution as shown in Equation 2-7,1 224,40 x x D tQ CxteCte Dt D t (2-7) 24

PAGE 25

D Tis the temperature dependent impurity diffusivity, t is the drive-in time, D t is the thermal budget and Q is the dose. However, a non-ideal profile resu lts after fabrication due to second order process effects. Therefore, it is necessa ry to experimentally measure the final impurity profile. Experimental techniques include s econdary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS). The concentration of the dopants is obta ined by bombarding ions such as O+ and Cs+ into the sample at a constant rate. The collisions cause the atoms in the sample to be ejected, analyzed and counted. However, SIMS gives the atomic impurity concentration, which does not always represent the electrical ly active carrier concentration. Fo r example, when a semiconductor is heavily doped or is submitted to low temperatur e, not all impurities are ionized and one speaks of impurity deionization. At high doping concentration 183 110 cm, the Fermi level lies within below the conduction band or within 3above the valence band. Since the targeted doping concentr ation is greater the 1x1018 cm-3, impurity deionization must be considered in the resistance design for piezoresistors. To account for the el ectrical active carrier concentration, techniques widely used in the indu stry are spreading resistance profiling and Hall Effect. 3 kT kTA more accurate computation of the resistance is obtained when we deviate from the assumption of a non-degenerate semiconductor to a degenerate one. A semiconductor is said to be a degenerate semiconductor when the carri er concentration is significantly large and the Fermi energy is less than 3 from the valence band. In order to compute the carrier concentrations, one must use the Fermi-Dirac distribution, i.e. the Boltzmann approximation is no longer valid. The Fermi-Dirac integral of order 0.1VPN kT 12 is given in Equation 2-8,38 25

PAGE 26

12 02d F 1 e (2-8) where CEEkT is the normalized electron kinetic energy and FCEEkT. Using Fermi-Dirac distribution, the electron and hole concentrations are given by Equation 2-9 and Equation 2-10,38 12FFC CEE NN kT (2-9) 12FVF VEE PN kT (2-10) 2.2 MEMS Piezoresistive Microphone The detection of acoustic pre ssure-induced strain via a co rresponding resistance change is the basic transduction mechanism of MEMS pi ezoresistive microphones. The diaphragm of a MEMS piezoresistive microphone defl ects when pressure is applie d. This deflection produces a change in the resistance of the four piezoresistors located at the diaphragm edge where stress is maximum in a Wheatstone bridge co nfiguration as shown in Figure 2-2. The four piezoresistors in the Wheatstone bridge are positioned such that two piezoresistors sens e the stress parallel to the current flow and the other two piezoresistor s sense the stress perpendicular to the current flow. 2.2.1 MEMS piezoresistive Microphone Voltage Output When the four piezoresistors R1, R2, R3, and R4 are equal, the Wheatstone bridge is said to be balanced. Thus at zero pressure, the output voltage, Vout, is zero. When the pressure on the diaphragm is non-zero, the diaphr agm deflects and the resistances of the four piezoresistors change in equal magnitude. However, the resistance change of 1 R and3 R have opposite signs to 26

PAGE 27

that of 2 R and4 R as indicated in Figure 2-2 by arrows. If 1234 R RRRR and change with equal magnitude, R the resulting piezoresistive mi crophone output voltage is given by Equation 2-11, out biasR VV R (2-11) where R is the change in resistance, R is the normalized unstrained resistance, and Vbias is the bias voltage Appendix B provides additional information on MEMS piezoresistive microphone voltage output. 2.2.2 MEMS Piezoresistive Microphone Sensitivity The sensitivity of a MEMS piezoresistive microphone is given by the ratio of the output voltage to the input pressure. The normalized sensitivity, which is the sensitivity divided by the bias voltage, is shown in Equation 2-12, 111out out bias biasVV R S VpVpRp (2-12) where Vbias is the voltage applied to the microphone, outV is the differential output voltage, and R is the resistance modulati on of the piezoresistor. 2.2.3 MEMS Piezoresistive Microphone Minimum Detectable Signal The lower limit of the dynamic range of a MEMS piezoresistive microphone is the minimum detectable signal (MDS). The expressi on of the MDS, which is the ratio of the output referred noise voltage to the sensit ivity, is given in Equation 2-13, PSDdf Noise MDS SensitivitySensitivity (2-13) 27

PAGE 28

From Equation 2-13, we see that the MDS can be reduced by lowering the noise or increasing the transducer sensitivity. 2.3 Noise and Noise Power Spectral Density In general, a disturbance can be described as an unwanted internal or external signal (acoustic, electrical) of a system that contaminates the signal of interest. In the electrical domain, disturbances can originate from the e nvironment or from within the device itself via current or voltage fluctuations. To reduce any contamination of the desi red signal from external disturbances such as power lin e 60 Hz ac interference, technique s such as shielding and proper wiring may be used. However, shielding or proper wiring cannot reduce the intrinsic nondeterministic random fluctuations that origin ate from the device. This intrinsic random fluctuation in voltage or current or generally effort or flow is termed noise. Since noise is a random process, analyzing it in the time domain does not give useful information regarding its average magnitude Therefore, we employ the power spect ral density function which gives the magnitude of the random signal squared over a ra nge of frequencies for noise measurements. The power spectral density function as described by Bendat and Piersol2 is given in Equation 214, 2 0, limx x f f f G f (2-14) where 22 01 ,lim,,T x T f fxtf Tfdt is the mean square value of a sample time record between frequencies f and f f 28

PAGE 29

2.4 Noise Sources in Piezoresistor Noise in semiconductor piezoresistors can be affected by defect density, temperature, doping concentration, and bias voltage. A semiconduc tor is in equilibrium, and its properties remain constant independent of time when it is no t subjected to a bias vol tage or any external stimuli such as light or thermal gradient. Ho wever, when bias or stimuli are applied to a semiconductor, the device is in non-equilibrium thus its properties are no longer constant. MEMS sensors are subjected to different noise mechanisms depending on whether they are at equilibrium or at non-equilibrium. Semiconductors are solid-state materials w ith conductivities lyi ng between those of insulators and conductors (1x10-8 and 1x104 S/cm). Semiconductor materials are very attractive and widely used in electronic devices si nce their conductivity can change with doping concentration, temperature, and light. Next we c onsider different noise mechanisms in silicon semiconductor-based MEMS piezoresistive microphones. 2.4.1 Electrical Thermal Noise Electrical thermal noise, also known as Johnson no ise, describes voltage fluctuations at the terminal of a conductor or semiconductor at equili brium. These fluctuations are caused by the random vibrations of charge carriers in equilibrium with the lattice at temperature, T Work by Nyquist3and Johnson4 led to the expression of the thermal noise power spectral density given in Equation 2-15, 24 thBV SkRT H z (2-15) where kB is the Boltzmann constant, R is the resistance, and T is the temperature in Kelvin. From Equation 2-15, we notice that electrical thermal noise is independent of bias voltage but depends on temperature. Elec trical thermal noise is not aff ected by bias voltage since the 29

PAGE 30

agitation of the charge carriers by thermal lattice vibrations is pres ent regardless of bias voltage. However, it is temperature dependent since mo re agitation of the carri ers occurs when the temperature is increased. In addition, Johnson noise is frequency independent because lattice vibrations are random, thus not related to any single time constant. 2.4.2 Mechanical Thermal Noise Mechanical thermal noise is the mechanical analogue of electrical thermal noise.5 By the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, any dissipative mechanism that re sults in mechanical damping must be balanced by a fluctuation force to main tain macroscopic energy balance, hence thermal equilibrium. The expression of the mechani cal thermal noise is given in Equation 2-16, 24 mthBmN SKRT H z (2-16) where m R is the equivalent mechanical resistan ce of the sensor. In a MEMS microphone mechanical damping can originate from the vent channel and the diaphragm. 2.4.3 Low Frequency Noise Low frequency noise is a fre quency dependent non-equilibri um noise. When an actual piezoresistor is subjected to an external stim ulus (voltage, light), an excess noise at low frequencies is observed above the thermal noise floor. Since it is i nversely proportional to frequency, it is also known as 1/f noise. The mechanism that generates 1 /f noise is still an active area of research. Two widely discussed mechanisms of 1 /f noise are the fluctuation in the mobility ( ) described by Hooge6 and the fluctuation in th e number of carriers ( n) developed by McWhorter. 7 30

PAGE 31

2.4.3.1 Hooges model Hooge6 originally conducted experiments on noise in homogeneous samples at low frequency and observed low frequency noise with an inverse frequency dependence. He suggested that this 1 /f noise at low freque ncy is a bulk phenomenon6 and is due to fluctuations in the mobility ( ).8, 9, 10 Hooge gave an empirical formula fo r the noise power spectral density of 1/f noise in his publications6 as shown in Equation 2-17, 2 2 VV V S Hz Nf (2-17) In Equation 2-17, known as the Hooge parameter, is an empirical material parameter varying from 1x10-6 to 1x10-3, V is the bias voltage, N is the number of carriers, and f is the frequency. Hooges equation indi cates a square bias voltage de pendence for the low frequency noise. Thus, this noise mechanism is only pres ent when a voltage is applied. In addition, Equation 2-17 shows that the no ise power spectral de nsity is inversely proportional to the number of carriers, N Thus, the low frequency noise depends on the doping concentration n and volume V as shown in Equation 2-18 through the dependence on N NnV (2-18) The accurate computation of the number of carri ers is important for an accurate estimated of or conversely, for the design of the 1 /f noise given In some works, the number of carriers used to compute the Hooge para meter is extracted assuming a homogeneous semiconductor. Thus, the current density and electric field has b een assumed to be the same in the bulk of the piezoresistor. However, for our diffused piezoresistor, computing the number of carriers using Equation 2-18, might lead to an ov er-estimate of the numbe r of carriers. To 31

PAGE 32

illustrate the importance of the number of carriers, let us use the example of two piezoresistors N1 and 2 R R and with same resistance R but a different estimate of the number of carriers, with Using Equation 2.17, although th e resistors have the same Hooge parameter12 and NN2 1 > NN the predicted 1 /f noise PSD of resistor 1 R will be less than that of the resistor 2 R To better estimate the number of carriers in an inhomogeneous semiconductor, we use Hall Effect measurement to obtain the active dose, which is multiplied by the piezoresistor aera to obtain as shown in Equation 2-19. N AANNA (2-19) where A AN is the electrical ac tive dose expressed in 2cm and A is the area of the sample. 2.4.3.2 McWhorters model McWhorter7 conducted his experiments on germanium samples and concluded that 1 /f noise is a surface effect. At the semiconductor su rfaces and interfaces, physical defects give rise to electronic traps that capture a nd emit charge. He postulated that 1 /f noise is caused by fluctuations of the number of char ge carriers due to trapping and de trapping of charge carriers at these traps. The Lorentzian generation-recomb ination spectrum resulting from the trapping and detrapping of the charge carriers at trap levels is given by Equation 2-20,11 212t GR GR tSfA f (2-20) 32

PAGE 33

where AGR is proportional to the density of the trap levels, and t is the tunneling time constant. Figure 2-3 describes the energy band diagram w ith two trap levels and their associated Lorentzian spectra with a corner frequency at 31 2dBf Since electrons located in trap centers far from the conduction band require more energy for generation-recombination to occur, is larger for deep trap cente rs than shallow trap centers as illustrated in Figure 2-3. Su mming the noise power spectral dens ities for a continuum of trap levels, we observe a 1 /f noise shape up to the cut off freque ncy where the curve rolls off as 1 /f2. The 1 /f noise observed at low frequenc ies is caused by fluctuations in the number of carriers in the conduction and valence bands due to trapping and detrapping of carriers located at multiple trap levels. The Hooge and McWhorter 1/f noise models are illustrated via the predicted resistance fluctuations in a p-type resistor in Appendix C. Both Hooges and McWhorters 1 /f noise models are actively us ed or modified to analyze and interpret low frequency noise m easurements in electronic devices.12,13, 14 However, since Hooges model describes the low frequency noi se through parameters (voltage, number of carriers, and Hooge parameter) that are easily mani pulated it is very attractive for analysis. Designers can model low 1/f noise piezoresistor by adjusting or modifying these parameters. 2.4.4 Shot Noise Schottky15 investigated noise in vacuum tubes. In a semiconductor, when charge carriers cross a potential barrier independently and randomly, fluctuati ons occur in the average current, I These fluctuations give rise to shot noise whic h is a non-equilibrium noise. In particular, shot noise is observed in a P/N junction due to the fluctuations in the average current I induced by the 33

PAGE 34

random crossing of carriers over a po tential barrier. The shot noise power spectral density is given in Equation 2-21, 22 IA SqI H z (2-21) where q is the electron charge, and I is the current. Equation 2-21 shows that shot noise is di rectly proportional to the average current I hence it is only present under bias conditions, a nd is frequency independent. 2.5 Defects in Semiconductors Defects have been cited to be the major cau se of low frequency noise. As described earlier, there are two well known theories6, 7 for the presence of the non-equilibrium 1 /f noise. In this section, we present mechanis ms that create different defect s in the bulk of a semiconductor that has been subjected to pre-amorphization, ion implantation, and diffusion. We also discuss defects at the semiconductor surface (Si/SiO2 interface) that may give rise to low frequency noise. 2.5.1 Bulk Defects Ion implantation is widely used for the intr oduction of foreign species in a semiconductor material such as silicon. Some advantages of ion implantation are the capacity to control the dopant concentration, the use of relatively low temperature, and reduced lateral distribution of the dopant. However, ion implantation has also some disadvantages. One of the disadvantages is the introduction of point defects such as interstitials and vacancie s into the crystalline lattice. Annealing is used after ion impl antation to recrystallize the silicon substrate and promote the activation of the dopant. The type of defects fo rmed after annealing have been categorized by Jones et al.16 The first category is termed Category I Damage by Jones et al.16 In this case, 34

PAGE 35

the implantation damage does not create an am orphous layer, however; a certain dose must be reached to lead to defect formation. The formed defects, located in the vi cinity of the projected rangep R are rod-like {311} defects a nd dislocation loops. The s econd category of defects, referred as Category II Damage by Jones et al.16occurs when the silicon is amorphized during ion implantation. After low annealing temper ature, {311} defects and dislocation loops are formed and are located beyond the amorphous/cryst alline interface. These defects are known are end-of-range defects. The third category of defects is called Category III Damage. 16 The creation of these defects, Hairpin dislocations and microtwins, is re lated to the imperfect regrowth of the amorphous layer. The fourth category of defects, Category IV Damage,16 refers to the defects generated when a buried amorphous layer is created. During annealing of Category IV Damage, extended defects such as dislocation loops, are formed where the two amorphous/crystalline interfaces meet. The fift h category of defects, Category V Damage,16 is observed after annealing when the dopant concentra tion is larger than it s solid solubility in silicon. The defects are disloc ation loops and precipitates an d are formed around the projected range. Figure 2-4, adapted form a publication of Jones et al.16 illustrates the Category I Damage, which is the type of damage that ma y be present in our piezo resistors since the boron implant energies, 5, 20 keV and 40 keV (through 0.1 m of SiO2), with respective doses of 6x1014, 7x1014, and 7x1014 cm-2 are not likely to amorphize the silicon. 2.5.2 Interface Traps At the Si/SiO2 interface in a semiconductor device, in terface traps can be a major issue in the performance of the device. The 1 /f noise modeled by McWhorter7 is based on the trapping and detrapping of charge carrier s at the interface traps. Res earchers have used modified McWhothers models 14, 17 in their work. For instance, Hou et al.,18 have used Fu and Sah 35

PAGE 36

model17 in their oxide trapping noise simulations The density of traps at the Si/SiO2 interface can be measured using Termans19 method which employed a high C-V frequency measurement of a capacitor. In Chapter 4 we discuss the e xperimental method to co mpute the interface trap density, itD 2.6 Process Dependence of 1 /f Noise Various hypotheses on the source of the 1 /f noise, their relation to the process fabrication (defects) and geometry have been provided by authors to describe th e limiting factors. Summaries process dependence of 1/f noise, defect formation and en ergy distribution of defects in semiconductors are provided. Researchers such as Bilger et al. 20, Vandamme and Ooterhoff21 Clevers22, Harley and Kenny23,12, Yu et al. 13, 24, Davenport et al.25, Mallon et al.26, E. Cocheteau et al.27, and B. Belier et al.28 have studied the process dependence of 1 /f noise by varying parameters such as impurity species (boron, B or boron fluoride, 2 B F ), pre-amorphization, ion implantation (energy, dose) with or without im plant oxide, annealing condition (furnace or RTA), surface passivation (thermal oxide, PECVD oxide, nitride), materials (crystal, amorphous and poly silicon), and device dimensions Their results indicate that low 1 /f noise and low Hooge parameters can be achieved through low implan t energy, long annealing conditions, good oxide quality, and large number of carriers. To illustrate the effect of impurity we examine the works of Cocheteau et al.27 and Belier et al.28 who both implanted their samples with2 B F instead of B However, Belier et al.28 performed Ge-preamorphization prior to ion implantation. Results from Cocheteau et al.27 show higher noise than they expected, thus Cocheteau et al.27 suggested that an increase in annealing time to reduce 1 /f noise. As for Belier et al.28 their devices with preamorphization have less low-frequency noise than those without preamorphization. Belier et 36

PAGE 37

al.28 recommended the lowering of preamorphization a nd implant energies to further reduce the 1/f noise. The defect evolutions and the defect types with their locations in implanted samples with or without amorphization have been studied by researchers such as Jones et al.16, Li and Jones29, Liu et al.30, and Girginoudi and Tsiarapas.31 In addition, as discussed in Section 2.5.1, Jones et al. 16 have categorized the types of defects and their locations after ion implantation and annealing and have described fact ors such as implant species, i on implantation (energy and dose) that lead to the defects formations and locations. The defect concentrations and energy levels in samples implanted with BF2, B or F-B and inert annealed or oxi dized were investigated by authors such as Yarykin and Steinman32, Boussaid et al.33, Benzohra et al 34, Kaniewski et al.35 and Girginoudi and Tsiarapas.31 Boussaid et al.33 results show energy levels caused by the boron implantation and annealing and other energy levels associated with the preamorphization. In their work, Boussaid et al.33 show that the DLTS peaks of defects associated with Gepreamorphization increases as the Ge energy increases. In add ition, samples with fluorine have higher defect concentrations than those without fluorine. The reverse bias currents of the p+n diodes fabricated by and Girginoudi and Tsiarapas31 are large but decrease as the deep level density decreases due to lower preamorphization energies and higher annealing temperatures. Low frequency noise has also been us ed by researchers such as Michelutti et al.36 to investigate the effect of environment on pressure sensors. Their measurements show that temperature influences 1 /f noise in corroded and non-corroded samples. Other scientists such as Park and Hwang37 have shown methods to fabricated shallo w junction for MOSFET devices. Park and Hwang37 implanted B and BF2. After ion implantation both pr ofiles have approximately the same junction depth but after annealing the BF2 profiles have shallowe r junction depths than 37

PAGE 38

those of B All the results presented in this section are important since they present the process dependence of 1 /f noise, defect formation and energy dist ribution of defects in semiconductors. This dissertation addresses the process dependence of 1 /f noise not only with 1/f noise magnitude as a function of annealing times but also with a systematic correlation of the 1 /f noise to the defects densities obtained with TEM and HFCV after each anneali ng condition. The effect of the number of carriers on 1 /f noise is studied first in piezoresistors with same resistance and different volume and piezoresistors with different resistances and volumes that underwent the same ion implantation and annealing conditions. S econd, the number of carriers is studied on piezoresistors with two different solid source diffusion conditions, to limit the interaction of the carriers with the interface traps, but with same annealing conditions. This allows to see if the reduction of the 1 /f noise is due to the number of carrier s or the additional solid source diffusion. 2.7 Summary There is a need to correlate the noise present in the devices to fabrication process and to the physical defects characterized by surface analytical techniques such as TEM. Therefore, an investigation of the correlati on of noise and defects in impl anted, solid source diffused and annealed piezoresistors is performed. Now that the background of the research and the contribution of this work were discussed, the piezoresistor desi gn is presented next. 38

PAGE 39

A B Figure 2-1. Piezoresi stor A) plan view B) cross-section. Figure 2-2. Piezoresistors conf igured in Wheatstone bridge. 39

PAGE 40

EC E n g r ET1 ET2 I(t)=qneAn(t) A) LogPSD (V2/Hz)f3dBLog f (Hz) f3dB 1/f g-r 1 g-r 2 Thermal noise B) Figure 2-3. Trapping-de trapping model for 1 /f noise. A) Energy band diagram of trapping and detrapping at two trap levels, B) Lorent zian spectrum of two trap levels in comparison with thermal noise. Category I Damage Density Distribution (keV/cm3) crystalline Figure 2-4. Category I da mage adapted from Jones et al. 40

PAGE 41

CHAPTER 3 PIEZORESISTOR DESIGN In this chapter, we present the theoretical de sign of piezoresistors a nd their realization via microfabrication that are used to study the process dependence of piezoresistor noise. We start by presenting the design of a piezoresistor assuming a non-degenerate semiconductor for both uniform and non-uniform impurity concentration profiles. Afterwards, we discuss the key resistor design parameters such as resistivity, resistance, and surface-to-volume ratio. We also consider non-idealities in the fa brication process that affect th e impurity profile. We finish by presenting the design of the piezoresistor test structures. 3.1 Introduction A p-type silicon piezoresistor is typically fabricated via ion-implantation of boron into crystalline silicon. The geometry of the pi ezoresistor is defined in Figure 3-1 where L and W are the length and widt h of the piezoresistor, is the contact width, andCWj X is the junction depth. In the depth direction, the spatial dependence of the boron concentration affects the conductivity and the resulting resistance measured be tween the two contacts. In the next section, the simplest (ideal) case of a uniform impurity profile is first consid ered. This simplifying assumption is then relaxed to derive more accurate resistance es timates for practical fabrication processes. 3.1.1 Piezoresistor Design with Uniform Doping Concentration The ideal case of a spatially uniform impurity profile in the depth direction is considered first as illustrated in Figure 3-2. Furthermore, the concentration is assumed to be low enough such that the carrier concen tration is non-degenerate, and the Boltzmann approximation for carrier statistics can be employed. For p-type silicon, this means a carrier concentration less than 1x1018 cm-3.38 In this case, the resistance of a uni formly doped piezoresistor is given by 41

PAGE 42

jL R XW (3-1) This approximation is not accurate for implanted samples because the impurity concentration is peaked at the projected range of the impurities and decreases exponentially approximately as the square of the distance from the projected range in a Gaussian profile. Thermal anneal of the implanted impurity profile in an inert ambient furt her distributes the impurities into the silicon. This Gaussian approximation of the spatial doping non-uniformity after ion implant and inert diffusion is considered next. 3.1.2 Piezoresistor Design with Gaussian Non-Uniform Doping Concentration The impurity concentration introduced into si licon via ion implantation and subjected to annealing varies with depth and is approximated by a Gaussian pr ofile as shown in Figure 3-3. For a limited-source diffusion in an inert ambient, the Gaussian distribution of impurities in the silicon is given by1 22,x D tQ Nxte Dt (3-2) For a limited-source diffusion, is constant, and the surface c oncentration decreases as the dopants are diffused into the substrate. is the temperature dependent diffusion coefficient of the impurity, and t is the drive-in time. The characteristic length,QD Dt is a function of the time at elevated temperature and re presents the thermal budget needed to obtain desired parameters such as the junction depth and surface concentrat ion. The resistance of a piezoresistor assuming a Gaussian distribution is computed using SL RR W (3-3) 42

PAGE 43

where S R is the sheet resistance of a di ffused layer which is given by1 01 jS x AA BAAR qNxNNxdx (3-4) where AANxis the impurity distribution, is the background doping concentration and is the mobility as function of the impurity profile. When a Gaussian distribution is used to predict the resistance of an implanted pi ezoresistor, there is still a mismatch between the theoretical and fabricated piezoresistor resistan ce. Possible causes of this mismatch include fabrication non-idealities that affect the atomic impurity concentration profile and the fundamental semiconductor physics of impurity deionization and degenerate Fermi-Dirac statistics. BNAANx 3.1.3 Fabrication Non-Idealities During piezoresistor fabrica tion, there are secondary eff ects that cause the impurity profile to deviate from the ideal Gaussian di stribution. These seconda ry fabrication effects include transient enhanced diffusion (TED) and oxidation enhanced diffusion (OED), two mechanisms that both may result in a deeper junction depth. In a ddition, the impurity atoms redistribute during oxidati on resulting in a pile up (phosphor us) or depletion (boron) at the Si/SiO2 interface. 3.1.3.1 Transient enhanced diffusion (TED) Ideally, the impurity diffusion coefficient is only a function of temperature; however, in practice, it is affected by the con centration of neutral and charged defects. The deepening of the junction depth during annealing du e to high diffusivity of the dopant caused by implant damage is termed transient enhanced diffusion (TED). The final junction depth is affected by the 43

PAGE 44

annealing temperature used to activate the dopan t in the semiconductor when implant damage is present. The choice of the diffusion te mperature is critical for TED. Deal et al. ,1 discuss the effect of time and temperature on TED. Deal et al. ,1 use a figure from Crowder39 that shows the effect of temperature on TED. In that figure from Crowder39 there is more diffusion for the lower temperature. 3.1.3.2 Oxidation enhanced diffusion (OED) During oxidation, there is injecti on of extra interstitials into the bulk of the silicon which may cause an increase of the dopant diffusion rate resulting in a deeper junction depth. This phenomenon is termed oxidation enhanced diffusi on (OED) and is observed during the oxidation of boron implanted silicon.1 3.1.3.3 Impurity segregation When two different materials are in contact, dopant present in one ma terial segregate into the materials until equilibrium is reached.1 Dopant segregation may cause a depletion or a pileup of the dopant near the materials interface. For example, during thermal oxide growth, boron preferentially segregates into the oxide causi ng a depletion of the boron concentration in the silicon near the Si/SiO2 interface. Thus, during oxidation or annealing in an oxidizing ambient, the predicted surface concentration may decr ease due to boron segregation into the SiO2 leading to a reduction of the total boron dose in the silicon. The segregation of boron in SiO2 were studied by Fair and Tsai.40 Figure 3-4 shows boron profiles assu ming ideal (Gaussian) and the non-ideal boron distribution that may result fr om TED, OED, and impur ity segregation. In Figure 3-4, the non-ideal profile has a smaller su rface concentration than the ideal Gaussian profile but also has a deeper junction depth. 44

PAGE 45

3.1.4 Fundamental Physics That Affect Electrical Activation of Impurities Another parameter to consider in the piezoresistor design is the electrically active concentration of impurities which can differ from the atomic concentration. This difference is due to the fundamental physics of impurity de ionization and degenera te carrier statistics discussed in Chapter 2. In both cases, the concen tration of the neutral donor and acceptor are estimated by taking into account the o ccupation factor of the donor impurities D f and acceptor impurities A f given in Equation 3.5 and 3-6.38 1 1 1DFD EE kT Df e g (3-5) 1 1 1FAA EE kT Af e g (3-6) where D g and A g are the donor and acceptor site degeneracy factor, is the Fermi level, FE D E is the donor level, and A E the acceptor level. The charge neutrality equation which allows the computation of the electron and hole concentrat ion at thermal equilibrium is given in Equation 3-7,38 0DDDAAAqPNNNNN (3-7) where and are the hole and electron concentrations,PN D DN and A AN are the donor and acceptor impurity concentrations, and D N and A N are the concentrations of electrons and holes trapped respectively at the donor and acceptor sites. Thus, the quantities D DDNN and A AANN represent the concentrati on of ionized donors and the concentration of ionized 45

PAGE 46

acceptors respectively. Since we take into account impurity deionization, D N and A N are not assumed to be zero but rather are computed using the donor and acceptor occupation factors and the respective impurity concentrations from38 D DDDNfN (3-8) and A AAANfN (3-9) Using 1 D DDDDDDDDDDDNNNNfNNf, the concentration of ionized donors is given by 1 1FDDDD EE kT DNN ge (3-10) and the concentration of i onized acceptors is given by 1 1AFAAA EE kT ANN ge (3-11) The electrical active carrie r concentration is obtained by solving the general charge neutrality condition, Equation 3-7 to gether with the mass action laws, 12 12 FCVF CV E EE NPNNF F kT kT E 46

PAGE 47

3.2 Piezoresistor Design Parameters Four key parameters are considered in the pi ezoresistor design. These parameters are the piezoresistor impurity profile, resi stance, surface area, and volume. Associated with the impurity profile are the doping process details such as im plant energy, annealing time and ambient. The overall purpose for the variation of these four parameters is to study the process and geometry dependencies of 1 /f noise in piezoresistors. The impurity profile is used to compute the number of carriers which in turn is used in the computation of the Hooge parameterN From Equation 2-17, we see that as increases, the 1 /f noise decreases for a specific value of N In addition, the 1 /f noise may originate from the bulk or th e surface of the piezoresistor. Thus, by varying the surface area and the vol ume of the piezoresistor, we change the surface to volume ratio to investigate whether the car riers are more affected by the de fects in the bulk or the surface traps when the piezoresistor is in non-equilibrium. 3.2.1 Piezoresistor Impurity Profile For fixed implant and annealing conditions the junction depth and surface concentration are unchanged for piezoresistors with different dimensions in the same wafer. Then the sheet resistanceS R the ratio of the resistivity to the junction depth, will be the same for all piezoresistors. Therefore, to design piezoresistors with different resistances, one may manipulate the piezoresistor width and length. 3.2.2 Piezoresistor Resistance Piezoresistors with four differe nt resistances have been desi gned. Since the junction depth and doping profile are the same for all the piezoresistors, the four different resistances have been obtained by varying the number of squares, which is the ratio of the length to the width of the 47

PAGE 48

piezoresistor LW. Figure 3-5, adapted from Jaeger41 shows two piezoresistors with the same sheet resistance, but different number of squares LWand hence resistance. 3.2.3 Piezoresistor Surface Area Piezoresistors with different surface area bu t same resistance are obtained by changing while maintaining the same number of squares,LW LW. Figure 3-6, adapted from Jaeger,41 shows two piezoresistors with the same resistance, R same number of squares, LW, but different surface area. 3.2.4 Piezoresistor Volume The piezoresistor volume is approximately equal to the product of the total surface area and the junction depth. It will vary as the surface area or the junction depth of the piezoresistors is changed. Thus, piezoresistors with the same resistance and different volume are also obtained. If the junction depth,j X is the same, then the ratio of the su rface area to volume is constant and equal to 1j X In the next section, the photomask design is outlined. 3.3 Test Structures Design The piezoresistor photomask de sign varies the four parameters described earlier. The process flow is summarized in Appendix D. A total of four photomasks have been designed in AutoCAD for the fabrication of th e test structures. The first mask is the implant mask, the second is the contact mask, the th ird is the metal mask, and the fourth is the bond pad mask. Two generations of test structures generation 1 and generation 2, have been fabricated. The difference between the two generations is in th e order that the implan t and oxide growth are performed and also the removal of an oxide layer before implant. In addition to the piezoresistors, we have designed additional test structures which are the p-type capacitor, P/N junction diode, Van der Pauw stru ctures and Hall Effect structures. The wafers used for the 48

PAGE 49

fabrication of test structures generation 1 and generation 2 are described respectively in Table 31 and Table 3-3 and the process flows of test st ructures generation 1 and generation 2 are shown in Table 3-2 and Table 3-4. The difference between the wafers of generation 1 and 2 is the resistivity. 3.4 Boron Profile Simulations The boron profile simulations are used to pred ict the surface concentration and junction depth after fabrication. However, many secondary effects may occur during the fabrication; thus the simulations serve only as an estimate and not as a final profile. Th e exact boron profile is obtained through measurements such as SIMS as described above. We use analytical calculations, FLOOPS (Florida Object Oriented Process Simulator)42 Fermi model and FLOOPS Pair model to estimate the boron profiles. 3.4.1 Analytical Calculation The analytical calculation is the least accurate among all the simulations since it does not include oxidation enhanced diffusion (OED), tran sient enhanced diffusion (TED), nor leakage of boron into the oxide (boron segregation). The eq uation used for test st ructures that are boron implanted and those that are boron solid source diffused are discussed next. 3.4.2 Limited Source Diffusion: Ion Implantation In ion implantation, charged impurities are bom barded into the silicon substrate. The higher the energy used to accelerate the particles the deeper they pe netrate into the substrate after colliding with the substrate atoms causing damage. The distribution of the atoms in the silicon bulk has a Gaussian profile expressed as follows1 2 22P PxR R pCxCe (3-12) 49

PAGE 50

where 2p P Q C R is the surface concentration, Q is the dose, and P R is the projected range which is the average distance that the impurity ions travel into the substrate before stopping. The peak concentration occurs at the projected range. P R is the standard deviation also called vertical or normal straggle. 3.4.3 Annealing after Ion implantation After ion implantation, the wafer is heated at an elevated temperature for a designated time for several reasons. During this process called an nealing, the substrate is re-crystallized, the impurities are electrically activated and the defects are removed. In the meantime, the impurities diffuse further into the substrate, and the surf ace concentration decrease s under inert annealing. There are conditions when the impurity concentr ation decreases or increases further at the surface of the substrate. This is the case duri ng an annealing in an oxidizing ambient. During oxidation, impurities such as boron segregate into the oxide while other species such as phosphorus pile up at the silicon side of the Si/SiO2 interface. This effect is not taking into account in the analytical calcula tion as shown in Equation 3-131 ,2 222 222P PxR RDt PQ Cxt e RDt (3-13) where 0A BE kTDDe 1is the diffusion coefficient of the impurity in the substrate. The intrinsic diffusivity, and activation energy, ,of boron in silicon are respectively 0DAEsec21 cm and .1 The quantity. 35 eV D t, the product of the diffusion coefficient, and the annealing time, t is called the thermal budget. The quantityD D t is an indicator of the time and temperature needed to achieve a junction depth or surface concentration. 50

PAGE 51

3.4.4 Solid Source Diffusion During solid source diffusion, the surface concentrat ion of the impurity is kept constant. The value of the surface concentration is solid so lubility limited. There is no damage during the introduction of the impurity into the substrate; however the dose of the impurity is not well controlled. The distribution of the impurity in the si licon is approximated by a complementary error function (erfc) as shown in Equation 3-14 ,1 (,) 2S predepx CxtCerfc Dt (3-14) where 2S predepQ C Dtis the surface concentration. Often the impurities are driven deeper into the s ubstrate after pre-deposition. The distribution of the impurity after drive-in is expressed by ,240drivein driveinx DtCxtCe (3-15) Since 0driveinQ C Dt and 2predep SDt QC we can rewrite Equation 3-15 as follows ,242predep drivein drivein driveinx Dt SDt C Cxt e Dt (3-16) 3.4.5 Florida Object Oriented Process Simulator (FLOOPS) FLOOPS42 is a two-dimensional process simulator. To estimate the profile of a dopant after ion implantati on and annealing, FLOOPS so lves the differentials diffusion equations of the 51

PAGE 52

impurity atoms and the point defects differentials equations. The initial distribution of the point defects, vacancies and interstitials, is determined by the implantation process. Two FLOOPS diffusion models, Fermi model and pair model, ar e used to approximate the boron profiles of our processes prior to fabrication. 3.4.5.1 Simplest FLOOPS (Fermi model) The FLOOPS Fermi model is the simplest FL OOPS simulation. In the Fermi model, diffusion is described as a con centration-dependent diffusivity.59 It is more sophisticated than the analytical calculation shown above. 3.4.5.2 More accurate FLOOPS (Pair model) In this model, the diffusion of the dopant o ccurs via dopant-intersti tial or dopant-vacancy pairs.59 FLOOPS Pair model includes TED, impur ity segregation and OED which shows a drastic deepening of the profile when oxidation enhanced diffusion (OED) is modeled. It is more sophisticated that the an alytical calculation and the FLOOPS Fermi model. 3.5 P-type Piezoresistor Implant and Annealing Condition The details of the implant and annealing condition for the p-type piezoresistors is discussed in the context of the resistan ce, surface area, and volume. 3.5.1 Piezoresistor Generation 1 (PG1) The junction isolated piezoresistors are designed to have various lengths and widths to obtain different surface areas. The purpose of va rying the surface-to-volume ratio is to find out whether the low frequency noise is more strongly dependent on the surface area based on McWhorters theory7 or the volume-distributed bulk defects based on Hooges theory.6 As stated earlier if the junction depth, j X is constant, then the ratio of the surface area to volume is constant and equal to 1j X This is the case for the piezoresistor design. The implant and 52

PAGE 53

anneal conditions of test stru ctures generation 1 are shown in Table 3-5. Figure 3-7 shows the simulated boron profile for piezoresistor gene ration 1. The FLOOPS model and analytical calculation show the same Rp However after annealing, the j unction depth of the FLOOPS pair model is deeper than those of the FLOOPS Fermi model and analytical calculation. The simulated junction depths are around 2.8 m, 1. 8 m and 1.7 m for the FLOOPS pair model, FLOOPS Fermi model and analytical calculation resp ectively. The surface concentrations of all simulated profiles are in the range of 6x1018 cm-3. There are four groups of piezoresistors with each group having the same resistance value but different surface area and volume. The fi rst group is composed of piezoresistor test structures 1, 2 and 3 with resistance, 1 R The second group has piezoresi stor test structures 4, 5 and 6 with resistance, 2 R The third group has piezoresistor test structures 7, 8 and 9 with resistance, 3 R and the fourth group contains piezoresistor test structures 10, 11 and 12 with resistance, 4 R respectively. Figure 3-8 shows designed piezoresistors test structures 7, 8, and 9 and their cross-section. Piezore sistor 7 has a dog-bone shape while piezoresistors 8 and 9 have serpentine shapes. The serpentine shape is used to minimize the area occupied by the piezoresistor. The piezoresistor surface area, volume and carrier number are used for the noise analysis as discussed earlier. The carrier num ber and resistance depend on the actual depth profile of the impurity c oncentration as well as on the funda mental carrier statistics and the carrier mobility. The dimensions, surface area and volume of the piezoresistors assuming uniform doping concentration are shown in Table 3-6, which shows groups of piezoresistors with the same LW but different surface and volume. Thus each set of piezoresistors with same resistance have carrier numbers that differ, which will affect the piezoresistors noise performance since Hooges expression of the 1 /f noise given in Equati on 2-17 shows that the 53

PAGE 54

noise voltage PSD is inversely propor tional to the number of carriers, Thus piezoresistors with larger should have lower 1 /f noise. Other parameters that could be used to analyze the noise voltage PSD of the piezoresistors are surfac e area and volume. The surface to volume ratio is constant since all the piezoresistors have been designed to have the sam e junction depth. In devices with the same junction dept h, most of the carriers in the piezoresistor are located at the same average distance away from the N N 2SiSiO interface. 3.5.2 Piezoresistor Generation 2 (PG2) The piezoresistors in generation 2 are fabric ated such that there is a systematic investigation of 1) th e correlation between 1 /f noise and defects and 2) the effect of Si/SiO2 interface traps on 1 /f noise. The piezoresistor have been doped with boron in three ways. The first method is by ion-implantati on through oxide into th e silicon substrate, the second is by ionimplantation directly into the silic on substrate, and the third is via solid source diffusion. After, the boron ion implantation and pre-deposition, the piezoresistors are then annealed in multiple ways. This different anneals allow investigation of defect evolution in the piezoresistors which are monitored with TEM and correlated to the 1 /f noise. Varying the j unction depth will allow different distances between the carriers centroid with respect to the SiO2 interface. The latter will help in verifying the eff ect of the surface traps on the 1/ f noise. There are two ways for which we can vary the anneal conditions. The first option is by fixing the te mperature and varying the annealing time and the second is by fixing the time and varying the temperature. Isothermal annealing was selected to investigate the time evoluti on of the defects. During the annealing, one should ramp up the furnace temperat ure to the proper temperature. If there are two different annealing temperatures, one for the inert annealing and one for the oxidation, two temperature ramps are required which is not time efficient and increase the thermal budget. Thus 54

PAGE 55

since all the piezoresistors will have a thin dry/ wet/ dry SiO2 passivation layer (200 ) thermally grown at 900 C for 5 min/ 5 min/ 10 min, the c hoice would be to have th e temperature fixed at 900 C for the inert anneal and vary the time to change the thermal budget, Dt where is the boron diffusivity with unit of D sec2cm and t is the annealing time. Thermally grown oxide at 900 C for 5 min/ 5 min/ 10 min is no netheless an annealing. The ques tion is if this step in itself does not remove all the defects. Our approach to this question is to en sure that the amount of defect is large enough so that a thermally grown oxide at 900 C fo r 5 min/ 5 min/ 10 min will not completely remove the defects. This can be done by high energy implant and/or large dose. Hence, for the implant directly into the sili con, we choose boron at 20keV with a dose of 7x1014 cm-2 and for the implant through SiO2 we choose boron at 40keV with a dose of 7x1014 cm-2. One may say that the boron dose of the 40 keV s hould be increased so that we would have the same concentration of boron in th e silicon as for the case of the 20 keV implant. The same dose was selected for a more straight forward analysis of the results. For the wafer with solid-source boron pre-deposition we have two conditions. In the first conditi on, boron is pre-deposited for 25 min at 950 C and in the second condition boron is also pre-deposited for 25 min at 950 C but it is followed by a phosphorus pre-deposition for 5 min at 800 C. The phosphorus pre-deposition is used to push the boron peak concentration away from the Si/SiO2 interface. This technique should allow us to investigat e the effect of the Si/SiO2 interface traps on the 1/ f noise magnitude since no bulk defect should be in troduced with so lid source diffusion. 3.5.2.1 Boron implanted piezoresis tors at 20 keV with a dose 7x1014 cm-2 The flow chart of the piezoresistors impl anted with boron at 20 keV with a dose of 7x1014 cm-2 at 7 degree tilt is shown in Figure 3-9. The boron profiles obtained with the analytical calculation and FLOOPS pair model for the implan t and all the anneal co nditions are shown in 55

PAGE 56

Figure 3-10, Figure 3-11, and Figure 3-12. In all figures, the as-imp lant and post-anneal profiles obtained with FLOOPS pair model have deeper junctions than thos e of the analytical solution. We also notice after annealing a decrease in th e peak concentration of the FLOOPS pair model while no significant change is observed for the an alytical calculation. These differences in the profiles are due to the fact that the FLOOPS pair model take into account secondary effects such as TED, OED, and impurity segreg ation as discussed in Section 3. 4.5.2. However, both models predict the same implant projected range, Rp around 0.1 m. The pr edicted junction depths after annealing are in the ranges of 0.25 m and 0.75 m for the analytical calculation and FLOOPS pair model respectively from the wafer surface. 3.5.2.2 Boron implanted piezoresis tors at 40 keV with a dose 7x1014 cm-2 through SiO2 The flow chart of the piezoresistors im planted with boron at 40 keV with a dose 7x1014 cm-2 at 0 degree tilt through SiO2 is shown in Figure 3-13. The boron profiles obtained with the analytical calculation and FLOOP S pair model for the implant a nd all the anneal conditions are shown in Figure 3-14, Figure 3-15, Figure 3-16, and Figure 17. Here also, as in the case of the 20 keV implant, all figures for the as-implant and post-anneal profiles obtained with FLOOPS pair model have deeper junctions than those of th e analytical solutions. A decrease in the peak concentration is noticed for the FLOOPS pair model while no significant change is observed for the analytical calculation in Figure 3-14, Figure 3-15, Figure 3-16, and Fi gure 17. The predicted junction depths after annealing are in the ranges of 0.35 m and 0.75 m for the analytical calculation and FLOOPS pair model except for the piezoresistor with only inert anneal which has a junction depth of 0.47 m. The junction depths are measured from the wafer surface. 3.5.2.3 Boron solid source diffused pi ezoresistors for 25 min at 950 C The flow chart of the piezoresistors with boron solid source diffusion for 25 min at 950 C 56

PAGE 57

is shown in Figure 3-18. The boron profile obtained with the pre-deposition analytical calculation and the anneal condition is shown in Figure 3-19. The diffe rence between junction depths for the pre-deposition and post annealing profiles are small. The junction depths are around 0.13 m and 0.17 m for the pre-deposi tion and post annealing profiles respectively while the surface concentrati ons are in the range of 2x1020 cm-3 and 9x1019 cm-3 for the predeposition and post annealing profiles. 3.5.2.4 Boron solid source diffused piezores istors for 25 min at 950 C followed by phosphorus solid source di ffusion for 5 min at 800 C The flow chart of the piezoresistors with boron pre-deposition for 25 min at 950 C followed by phosphorus pre-deposition for 5 min at 800 C is shown in Figure 3-20. Next we will discuss the other test structures such as the Ptype capacitors, the P/N diode, the Van der Pauw and the Hall Effect structures. 3.6 Additional Test Structures In addition the piezoresistors, we fabricate additional test structures such as p-type capacitors, P/N diodes, Van der Pauw structures, a nd Hall effect structures. We use the p-type capacitor is to measure the oxide thickness and co mputed the interface trap densities. The P/N diode is used to measure the junction leakage cu rrent and the shot noise The sheet resistance and contact resistance are measured using the Va n de Pauw structure wh ile the electrical active carriers are measured using th e Hall Effect structure. 3.6.1 P-type Capacitor Equipments such as Nanospec and Ellipsometer are commonly used to measure oxide thicknesses optically. The capacitance-voltage, C-V, characteristic of a p-t ype capacitor can also be used not only for oxide thickness measurement but also for the computation of interface trap density. Figure 3-21 shows the plan view and cross-section of a p-t ype capacitor. The 57

PAGE 58

theoretical value of the capacitance of the p-capacitor is obtained using Equation 3-17 at the accumulation condition, ox oxCA t (3-17) where ox is the product of the permittivity of free space 0 (8.854x10-12 F/m) and the dielectric constant (3.9 at 300 K) of the insulator (SiO2), is the oxide thickness, and 0koxt A is the area of the metal on top of the insulator. 3.6.2 P/N Diode P/N diodes are used to measure the junction leakage current and the associated shot noise. A top view and cross-section of a P/N diode are shown in Fi gure 3-22. The ideal current equation of a P/N diode is given by 01A BqV kT DIIe (3-18) where is the bias voltage, is the Boltzmann constant, Tis the temperature in Kelvin, and AVBk0 I is the saturation current as expressed by 22 0 Nii P NAPD D nn D IqA LNLN (3-19) where is the electronic charge, q A is the cross-sectional area, and ND P D are respectively the electron and hole diffusion coefficients sec2cmand and NL P L are respectively the electron and hole minority carrier diffusion lengths, and is the intrinsic carrier concentration. in 58

PAGE 59

3.6.3 Van der Pauw Structure Van der Pauw structures are used to measure the sheet resistance, line width, and contact resistance. The top view of th e Van der Pauw structure layout is shown in Figure 3-23. From Figure 3-23, the sheet resistance is calculated from voltages and currents measured at contact pads A, B, C and D using 1 2ln2ABAD s CDBCVV R II (3-20) Equation 3-21 and Equation 3-22 are us ed to compute the line width, W, and contact resistance, C R m SR WLW R (3-21) FG C GEV R I (3-22) where D E m CFV R I L is given by the center to center spaci ng between D and E, and W is the width of the bar. In the next section, we present test structures used fo r extracting the carrier concentration. 3.6.4 Carrier Concentration Test Structures Several methods exist to compute the carrier concentration in se miconductor devices. Methods that are used to measure or estimate th e carrier concentration in semiconductor devices include spreading resistance, SI MS, capacitance-voltage profiling, and Hall Effect. Each method has advantages and disadvantages. 59

PAGE 60

3.6.4.1 Spreading resistance technique In the spreading resistance technique, the surf ace of the semiconductor is cut at an angle rendering the measurement destructive. Two-point metal probes are used to measure the resistivities of th e layers along the depth of the bevele d area while successively comparing it against standards.1 A disadvantage of the spreading resistan ce is the tedious sample preparation and measurement analysis. 3.6.4.2 Secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) technique Secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) prov ides the dopant concentration of both uniform and nonuniform doped samples. It is also a destructive method. In this method, ion beams such as O+ and Cs+ are focused on the sample silicon substrate. These ions collide with the impurity in the substrate cau sing them to be ejected. The resulting secondary ions are analyzed and counted. In this method, one disadvan tage is that the profile consists of the foreign atom concentration. In some applications such as ours, where the sample is heavily doped, impurity deionization occurs, thus the atomic concentration does not represent the electrically active carrier concentration in which we are inte rested. Thus, SIMS may overestimate the carrier concentration which will lead to an inaccurate number of carri ers and thus an error in the estimate of the Hooge parameter However, SIMS can be useful in determining the junction depth and the profile of atoms residing in each layer such as boron in oxide due to boron segregation during oxidation. This information can be used to approximate the boron dose before and after thermal oxidation into the silicon. 3.6.4.3 Capacitance-voltage technique In the capacitance-voltage technique, de vices that exhibit a voltage dependence capacitance such as Schottky diode, P/N junction, and MOS capacitor (MOSC) are used. The doping profile can be obtained from the DC volta ge dependent space charge layer thickness in a 60

PAGE 61

MOSC since the free carriers concentration resp ond to the small signal applied at the gate. Therefore, since the free carrier concentration depends on the dopa nt profile, the profile of the impurity can be obtained over the ra nge of depletion thicknesses. The ionized impurity profile is given by43 22 1s GNx d q dVC (3-23) where x is the depth,0ssK is the dielectric permittivity of silicon, is the DC gate bias, and is the small-signal depletion capacitance. So me advantages of C-V profiling using a MOSC over a Schottky diode and a P/N junc tion is that the C-V of a MOSC can scan distances close to the semiconductor/oxide interface. In addition, higher doping densities can be measured with MOSC C-V than with Schottky diode or P/N diode which are junction breakdown voltage limited. GVC3.6.4.4 Hall measurement technique The Hall effect is a nondestr uctive measurement t echnique that can determine whether a material is p or n-type, the carrier concentrati on, and the mobility. This makes Hall effect a powerful technique. The top view of the Hall effect structure layout is shown in Figure 3-24. In the Hall effect measurement, a magnetic field, Bz, is applied perpendicularly to the sample, while a current, AC I is passed from contact A to contact C and a hall voltage D BV is measured between contacts D and B as shown in Figure 3-24. The expre ssion of the hall voltage is given by AC DBZ I VB qtp (3-24), 61

PAGE 62

where q is the electronic charge, t is the sample thickness, and p is the carrier density. The Hall H R coefficient is obtained using D B H Z ACtV R B I (3-25), and the carrier concentration p is obtained from 1 H p qR (3-26), Generally, in Hall effect measurement, the samp le is assumed to have a uniform doping profile. However, this is not always the case. Theref ore, for non uniformly doped samples, to obtain an accurate number of carriers for the computati on of the Hooge parameter, we measure the electrically active dose, from th e measured Hall sheet coefficient, and multiply it by the sample area. 3.7 Summary We have discussed the piezoresi stor test structur es designs of generation 1 process and generation 2 process for the st udy of the effect of the numbe r of carriers and the process dependence on 1 /f noise respectively. The de sign of additional test st ructures, such as p-type capacitors and Van der Pauw structures were disc ussed. Their purpose is to extract parameter such as oxide thickness, sheet resistance and doping concentration used in the study of the effect of the number of carriers on the 1 /f noise and in the analysis of the correlation of 1/f noise to defects. 62

PAGE 63

Table 3-1. Wafer characteristics used to fabricate test stru ctures generation 1. Diameter Type Orientation Resistivity Thickness 4 inch N (100) 2.0-5.0 -cm 500-550 m Table 3-2. Process steps for piezoresistor test structur es generation 1. Process Step 1. RCA wafer clean (n-Si, 100 mm diameter., CZ (100), 2-5 -cm, 500-550 m thick) 2. Thick isolation oxide growth 3. Lithography for implant mask 4. Oxide etch 5. Photoresist strip 6. Ion implantation 7. RCA wafer clean 8. N2 anneal + dry/ wet/dry oxidation 9. Lithography for contact hole 10. Oxide etch 11. Photoresist strip 12. Front side metallization (Al, 1% Si) 13. Lithography for metal bond pad 14. Metal etch 15. Back side metallization (Al, 1% Si) 16. Photoresist strip 17. Nitride passivation depos ition step and patterning 18. Post metallization anneal (Forming gas 96%N2, 4% H2) 19. Wafer dice 20. Chip die attach and wirebond Table 3-3. Wafer characteristics used to fabricate test stru ctures generation 2. Diameter Type Orientation Resistivity Thickness 4 inch N (100) 0.5-1.0 -cm 500-550 m 63

PAGE 64

Table 3-4. Process steps for piezoresistor test structur es generation 2. Process Step 1. RCA of wafers (n-Si, 4 in, CZ <100>, 0.5-1 -cm, 525 25 m) single side polished. (UF) 2. Grow thick isolation mask dr y/wet/dry SiO2 (70/23/70 min at 1100 C) and spin resist. (UF) 3. Lithography for a) channel implant or b) channel solid-sou rce predep (UF) 4. Etch dry/wet/dry oxide where channel a) impl ant or b) solid-source predep is to be performed. (UF) 5. Photoresist strip. (UF) 6. RCA clean (UF) 7. Growth thin dry/wet/dry SiO2 and lithography for channel implant with mask 2 (dark field). 8. Ion implantation 9. Photoresist strip and RCA wa fer organic clean (SC-1) 10. Inert anneal in N2 and dry/wet/dry SiO2 of wafers 11. Lithography for contact holes with mask 3 (dark field). This a pplies to wafers with and without thin oxide implant masks. 12. Etch oxide for contact holes 13. Photoresist strip and front side meta llization on top wafer-polished surface 14. Lithography for metal with mask 4 (clear field), metal etch a nd photo resist strip 15. Nitride passivation depo sition (PECVD) on top of wafer-polished surface 16. Lithography for contact pads with mask 5 (dark field), nitride etch and back side metallization on bottom of wafer-unpolished surface 17. Post metallization anneal (forming gas 96% N2, 4% H2) 18. Wafer dicing 19. Packaging Table 3-5. Implant and a nnealing conditions of test structures generation 1. Species Energy (keV) Dose (cm-3) Tilt (degree) Inert anneal in N2 Dry/Wet/Dry oxide Boron 5 6x1014 7 300 min, 1050 C 65/21/65 min, 950 C 64

PAGE 65

Table 3-6. Dimensions, surface area, and vol ume of piezoresistors assuming uniform doping profile. Piezoresistor L ( m) W ( m) (L/W) Surface ( m2) Volume ( m3) 1 70 13.9 5.04 973.00 2208.71 2 105 20.85 5.04 2189.25 4969.60 3 122.5 24.33 5.04 2980.43 6765.56 4 140 13.90 10.07 1946.00 4417.42 5 210 20.85 10.07 4378.50 9939.20 6 245 24.33 10.07 5960.85 13531.13 7 700 13.90 50.36 9730.00 22087.10 8 1050 20.85 50.36 21892.50 49695.98 9 1225 24.33 50.36 29804.25 67655.65 10 1400 13.90 100.72 19460.00 44174.20 11 2100 20.85 100.72 43785.00 99391.95 12 2450 24.33 100.72 59608.50 135311.30 A B Figure 3-1. Piezoresi stor A) top view a nd B) cross-section. 65

PAGE 66

Figure 3-2. Uniform doping concentration. Concentration (cm-3) Figure 3-3. Non-uniform doping c oncentration (Gaussian Profile). 66

PAGE 67

Figure 3-4. Illustration of boron profiles when secondary effect such segregation (A) oxidation enhance diffusion (B), transient enhanced diffusion (C) are present during processing and comparison of a Gaussian profile with and a non-ideal bor on distribution (D). Figure 3-5. Piezoresist ors with same sheet resistance, but different number of squares and resistance adapted from Jaeger. 67

PAGE 68

Figure 3-6. Piezoresistors with same resistance, different su rface area and same number of square adapted from Jaeger. Figure 3-7. Simulated boron profile for piezoresistor generation 1. 68

PAGE 69

A1 A2 A3 B Figure 3-8. Piezoresist ors test structures A1) Piezoresistor 7, A2) Piezoresistor 8, A3) piezoresistor 9 and B) piezo resistor cross-section. 69

PAGE 70

Figure 3-9. Boron 20 ke V implanted-silicon and anneal flow chart. Figure 3-10. Boron, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7tilt implant and anneal 1 (Dt1). 70

PAGE 71

Figure 3-11. Boron, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7tilt implant and anneal 2 (Dt2). Figure 3-12. Boron, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7tilt implant and anneal 3 (Dt3). 71

PAGE 72

Figure 3-13. Boron 40 keV implantedsilicon and anneal flow chart. Figure 3-14. Boron, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 0tilt implant and anneal 1 (Dt1). 72

PAGE 73

Figure 3-15. Boron, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 0tilt implant and anneal 2 (Dt2). Figure 3-16. Boron, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 0tilt implant and anneal 3 (Dt3). 73

PAGE 74

Figure 3-17. Boron, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 0tilt implant and anneal 4 (Dt4). Figure 3-18. Boron solid source diffusion in n-silicon and anneal flow chart. 74

PAGE 75

Figure 3-19. Analytical calcu lation of boron solid source diffu sion in n-silicon and anneal 3 (Dt3). Figure 3-20. Boron and Phosphorus solid source diffusions in n-si licon and anneal flow chart. 75

PAGE 76

A B Figure 3-21. Capacitor layout A) pl an view and B) cross-section. A B Figure 3-22. P/N diode layout A) plan view and B) cross-section. 76

PAGE 77

Figure 3-23. Plan view of a Van der Pauw structure. Figure 3-24. Hall Effect structure A) plan view and B) cross-section. 77

PAGE 78

CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL METHOD In this chapter, we elaborate on the experiment s that are conducted using the test structures designed in Chapter 3. We discuss the equi pments, measurement setup, and measurement analysis for each experiment to be conducted. We start with the experimental method for the characterization of the piezoresistors, which is followed by that of the p-type capacitor and the P/N diode. The goal of these experiments is to st udy the effect of the nu mber of carriers on the 1 /f noise using the piezoresistors test structures of generation 1, the process dependence of 1 /f noise and correlate the low freque ncy noise to defects using test structures of generation 2. 4.1 Piezoresistor Experimental Methods In this section, we discuss two important measurements to be conducted on piezoresistors which are the I-V and the noise measurements. 4.1.1 Piezoresistor I-V Measurement The I-V characteristics are measured to obt ain the piezoresistor resistances and their linearity range. This linear ra nge is useful since it allows us to know the range of voltages to apply to the piezoresistor s during the noise measurements. The piezoresistor resistance is also useful since it allows us to compute the theoretica l thermal noise that will be compared with the measured value. Thus, this gives us confidence in the measurement. Th e I-V characteristic of the piezoresistor is obtained with the Agilent Semiconductor Parameter Analyzer 4155C and a probe station We place probes on the piezoresistor co ntacts and then sweep voltages across the piezoresistor while simultaneously recording the corresponding currents. Afterwards, we plot the current versus the voltage and use the slope of the curve to obtain the resistance value. Since the piezoresistors are junction isolated, during the IV measurement, a voltage is applied to the ntype substrate to reverse bias the P/N junction and thus potentially avoid leakage current. Once 78

PAGE 79

we know the piezoresistor linear range and re sistance, we then proceed to the noise measurement. 4.1.2 Piezoresistor Noise Measurements There are three phases for the piezoresistor noise measurement. The first one is the noise setup, the second is the equipment settings, and the third is noise extraction. The noise measurement is used to measure the excess noi se of the piezoresistor and the P/N diode. 4.1.2.1 Noise measurement setup The equipment used for the noise measurement are three nested Faraday cages, a low-noise preamplifier (SRS 560), a dynamic signal analyzer (SRS 785), lead acid batteries, metal film resistors, double shielded coaxial cables (RG-223/U), BNC connect ors, and LabView to automate the measurements. The noise measurement setup uses DC bias voltages. The combination of lead acid battery, short cable, triple shielded Faraday cage and single point ground help to reduce potent ial extrinsic in terference signals such as radio signals (AM, FM) at high frequencies and power line interference at 60 Hz and their harmonics. Figure 4-1 A) and B) shows the piezoresistor noise measurement set up and the small signal noise representation for the extraction of the noise of the device under test (DUT). In Figure 4-1, the current noise PSD associated with the bias resistorand the DUT biasR D UTR are respectively and biasiRS D UTiRS. and are the input referred current and voltage noise PSD of the low noise amplifier. Th ey are obtained respectively via open and short circuit noise measurements of the low-noise preamplifier. iAmpSvAmpSi R and G represent respectively the noise free input impedance and ga in of the pre-amplifier, and is the raw measured voltage noise PSD. After proper shielding, another important c onsideration for the noise measurement is the equipment settings which are discussed next. vO utS 79

PAGE 80

4.1.2.2 Equipment setting for noise PSD measurement As mentioned earlier, we use a low-noise pr eamplifier (SRS 560), a spectrum analyzer (SRS 785), and a computer with LabView to coll ect the data. Table 4-1 shows the low-noise amplifier settings. The amplifier input A is set to ac coupling because we are interested in the time-varying signal. The gain is set to 1000 to ensure that the output signal of the preamplifier is higher than the noise floor of the spectrum anal yzer allowing accurate noise measurement. The output of the low-noise amplifier is fed to the input A of the spectrum analyzer. Table 4-2 shows the spectrum analyzer settings. The coupling is set to ac since we are interested in small signal fluctuations. A Hanning window is selected for the measurement of the random signal because it provides good selectivity and reduces power spectral density leakage. A list of spans, FFT lines, and bin widths is given in Ta ble 4-2. The overall power sp ectral density is obtained by overlapping the measurements of the different spans. At low frequencies, the binwidth is smaller to ensure better frequency resolution and th erefore good accuracy of th e measurements. All these different equipment settings are set in LabView which automates the measurements. In addition to the proper shielding, equipment sett ings, and measurement automation, one needs to correctly extract the DUT noise PSD from the raw measured noise PSD In the next section, we show how to extract the DUT noise. 4.1.2.3 Noise power spectral density extraction The piezoresistor noise voltage PSD is extracted by noise ci rcuit analysis of the noise equivalent circuit shown in Figur e 4-1 B). The raw output noise voltage PSD expression is given in Equation 4-1. 2 2 2 2//// //bias DUTi vOut vAmp iRiAmpiRbiasDUTi ibiasDUTR SGS SSSRRR RRR (4-1) 80

PAGE 81

In Equation 4-1, the open-circuit noise PSD of the SRS 560, is negligible compared to the other noise sources. Also note thatiAmpSibi as R Rand iDU T R R, thus and //////biasDUTibiasDUTRRRRR 2 2//i ibiasDUTR RRR is reduced to one since //ibiasDUTiRRRR Therefore, 2 2//bias DUTvOut vAmpiRiRbiasDUTSGSSSRR Solving for D UTiRS, we obtain 2 2 2Hz //DUT biasvOut vAmp iR iR biasDUTS S G SS RR A (4-2) The noise voltage D UTvRSis obtained by multiplying D UTiRSby D UT R squared as shown below, 22 VHzDUT DUTvRiRDUTSSR (4-3) The bias resistor is a metal film resistor which has very little 1 /f noise, thus it does not contribute to the measured excess noise. However, since it st ill contributes thermal noise, to minimize the effect of the bias resistor th ermal noise on the measurement, we select abiasRbias R with a resistance much larger than that of the resistance of the device under test, D UT R so that the parallel combination of the two resistances equals that of the D UT R Finally, the bias voltage across D UT R is varied by fixing the large impedance, bias R and changing the battery voltage batteryV. In addition to the piezoresistor exce ss noise, we measure the P/N diode shot noise. In the next section, we will disc uss the P/N diode experimental method. 81

PAGE 82

4.2 P/N Diode Experimental Method There are two important measurements to be c onducted with the P/N diode. The first is the DC current-voltage char acteristic, and the second is the shot noise. 4.2.1 P/N Diode DC Current-Voltage The P/N diode current-voltage measurement is a useful monitor of the reverse bias voltage prior to voltage breakdown and also of th e turn on voltage. For wafers with a uniform background concentration of 1x1016 cm-3 and an abrupt junction, the theoretical breakdown voltage is around 60 V,38 which is sufficiently large enough for our application. However, the actual breakdown voltage needs to be verified. The setup for the I-V measurement of the piezoresistor applies also for the P/N diode I-V ch aracteristics. However, for the P/N diode, one probe makes contact with the p-t ype region and the other with th e n-type substrate. The P/N diode shot noise is discussed ne xt. Although we have P/N diode te st structures, we measure the shot noise directly on the piezore sistor substrate isol ation junction for which we have measured the noise voltage PSD as desc ribed in Section 4.1.2.3. 4.2.2 P/N Diode Shot Noise Measurement The origin of the shot noise ha s been discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.4.4. It has also been shown to be proportiona l to the DC current passi ng through the P/N diode. 4.2.2.1 P/N diode noise measurement setup Although we use the same shielding method for the shot noise measurement and equipment settings, the resistor bi asing network for the P/N diode shot noise is different than that of the piezoresistor. Figure 4-2 shows the noise measurement setup for the P/N diode noise measurement. In Figure 4-2, and are the noise current sources associated respectively with the bias resistors 1 biasiRS2 biasiRS3 biasiRS1bias R and 2biasR3bias R The noise associated with the diode 82

PAGE 83

resistance D R is The diode resistance iDS D R is equal to TDCnVI where is the ideality factor and is the thermal voltage nTV kTq. As in Figure 4-1, and are the input referred current and voltage noise of the low noise amplifier with input impedance iAmpSvAmpSi R and raw measured noise The bias resistor 1 vOutS 1biasRand the bias resistor 2 2biasR serve as the voltage divider step down of the 12 V lead acid battery bias voltage. 3bias R is used in a voltage divider of the already st epped down voltage. The vo ltage across the P/N diode D V is measured and the corresponding current D I passing through the diode D is obtained by use of the P/N diode I-V curve. 4.2.2.2 Shot noise power sp ectral density extraction Figure 4-2 B) is used for the noise analysis. The extracted P/N diode shot noise current PSD is given by 2 2 2A Hz //Db i a svOut vAmp iR iRiAmp biasDS S G SS S RR (4-4) In Equation 4-4, bias R is and is the current thermal noise of 123//biasbiasbiasRRR biasiRSbias R 4.3 P-Type Capacitor Experimental Method The high frequency C-V measurement (HFCV) of the p-type metal-oxide-semiconductor capacitor (p-MOSC) is used to measure the oxide thickness and also to estimate the density of interface traps (DIT) at the Si/SiO2 interface using the Termans method.19 The impedance analyzer 4294A is used for th e C-V measurement. Figure 4-3 shows the setup for a C-V measurement adapted from Sah.38 Not shown in Figure 4-3 is the ac signal in addition to the DC bias. During the C-V measurement, an oscillating frequency f is applied 83

PAGE 84

through the surper imposed ac signal while the DC voltage is swept from negative to positive voltages. From the measured capacitance, the oxide thickness is computed using Equation 3-17 in accumulation, which for a p-MOSC is at the maximum applied negative gate voltage where the majority holes accumulate at the silicon surface. The accumulation and inversion capacitances respectively, and are extracted from the HFCV and used to compute the semiconductor capacitance oxCinvC s C from 21 F cms invoxC AA CC (4-5) Next, the carrier concentration, is obtained by solving AAN 1 2 02sAA s SKqN C (4-6) where S is the surface potential expressed by 2lnAA S iN kT qn (4-7) In Equations 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7, is the electronic charge, q s K is the semiconductor dielectric constant, 0 is the permittivity of free space, k is the Boltzmann constant, Tis the temperature in Kelvin, and A is the cross-sectiona l area of the MOSC. The extracted carrier concentration, and oxide thickness are then used to compute and plot the ideal high frequency C-V of the p-MOSC on the same figur e as the measured high frequency C-V. For each capacitance value, the corresponding measured and ideal gate voltages, are recorded and AANGV 84

PAGE 85

a difference between the two is computed. The interface trap density, DIT, is then computed from the measured distortion betw een the ideal and actual HFCV curves in terms of a surface potential, idealGGGVVVS dependent GV using 21 2 oxG it SCdV Dc m qd e V (4-8) Next we discuss the transmission electr on microscopy (TEM), a technique used to visualize and count the def ects in the silicon. 4.4 Transmission Electron Microscopy Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) allows the visualiza tion of the defects in the bulk of the piezoresistors. In this technique, the image is form ed by electrons that pass through thinned samples, via ion milling, and hit a photographic plate. One can use cross-section TEM (XTEM) and plan-view TEM (PTEM) to visualize a nd analyze the defects in the sample. XTEM allows sides view of the defects thus its depth into the sample while the PTEM allows a top view of the defects therefore can be used to comput e the defect densities. PTEM is made out of samples that have about 3 mm diameter. The samples are polished using polishing jigs and aluminum power. After the sample is thinne d, it is mounted face dow n on a Teflon holder which has a hole at its center. A wax is used on the edge of the sample to secure it on the holder. A hole at the center of the sample it made by etching it from the back side with HF:HNO3 (25%:75%) solution. The edges of the sample th at are cover with wax are not etched. After etching the hole the samples are released from the holder by a pplying acetone to the wax. Region around the hole are thin en ough and are electron tr ansparent. It is in these electron transparent regions that PTEM pictures are taken. For XTEM a thin elec tron transparent section of the sample in obtained via focus ion beam (FIB). Since we have oxide on the surface of our 85

PAGE 86

samples which is not conductive, we carbon coat the samples prior to inserting them in the chamber of the Dual Beam SEM-Focused Ion Be am (FEI Strata DB235) system. After, the section is cut with the FIB station and placed on a sample holder, it is inserted in JEOL TEM 200CX instrument to obtain crosssection images. Next we discu ss the Van der Pauw structure. 4.5 Van Der Pauw Structure The Van der Pauw structure is very useful si nce it allows the computation of the sheet resistance,S R of a doped semiconductor which is relate d to the surface concentration. In addition to the sheet resistance, the Van der Pauw structure allo ws the measurement of the line width, and the contact resistance,W C R of the structures. The detailed equations are summarized in Chapter 3. 4.5.1 Sheet Resistance The Agilent Semiconductor Parameter An alyzer 4155C and a probe station are used to measure the sheet resistanceS R We place probes on the four contacts A B C and D of the Van der Pauw structure, and we inject a current through two contacts while we record the corresponding voltage across the tw o other of contacts. The sheet resistance is computed using Equation 3-20 and can be used to compute the resi stance of a piezoresistor for a given number of squares LW. 4.5.2 Line Width For the line width measurement, we also use the Agilent Semiconductor Parameter Analyzer 4155C and a probe station. This m easurement gives insight on any lithography error that occurs during fabrication. The line width is measured us ing Equation 3-21 in Chapter 3, Section 3.7.5. W 86

PAGE 87

4.5.3 Contact Resistance The contact resistance, C R is measured with the same equipment used to measure the sheet resistance and the line width. Knowing C R is relevant since it allows us to verify its effect on the measurement of the piezoresistor resistance. The contact resistance C R is measured using Equation 3-22. The test structure used to comput e the electrical active carrier c oncentration is discussed next. 4.6 Hall Effect Measurement The Hall Effect measurement is used to compute the active dose, which is used for the computation of the number of carriers, An accurate number of carriers is necessary for a correct extraction of the Hooge parameter (Equation 2-17). The test structure used for the Hall Effect measurement was shown in Chapter 3, Fi gure 3-24. In the extraction of the carrier concentration, a uniform doping pr ofile is assumed. Schroder44 discusses two methods to measure the carrier concentra tion of non uniformly doped samples. The first method is to successively chemically etch layers of the samp le while conducting a Hall Effect measurement of each etched sample. The second method is to produce a junction at the surface of the sample to make the layer inactive using a P/N junction, a Schottky barrier, or a MOS capacitor. Another approach is to measure the Hall sheet coefficien t to extract the active impurity dose and compute the number of carriers by multiplying the active dose by the tota l surface area of the piezoresistor. QN4.7 Summary We have presented the experimental methods for the measurement of sheet and contact resistance, line width, low fr equency noise, surface and bulk defects, junction leakage current, and carrier concentration. These results of th ese measurements are used to correlate the 1 /f noise 87

PAGE 88

to the defects, relate the low frequency noise to the number of carrier s and compute the Hooge parameter. The experiments will help monitor the 1 /f noise of the piezoresistor with increasing annealing time. In the next chapter, the fabrication and measurement results are discussed. 88

PAGE 89

Table 4-1. Low-noise pr eamplifier SRS 560 setting. Coupling Input Bandwidth Gain Input Output AC A 0.03 Hz 300 KHz 1000 100 M 25 pF 50 Table 4-2. Spectrum an alyzer SRS 785 setting. Parameters Settings Coupling AC AC AC AC Input A A A A Window Hanning Hanni ng Hanning Hanning Span (Hz) 12.5 200 1600 12800 FFT Lines 800 800 800 800 Binwidth (Hz) 0.016 0.25 2 16 A biasiRSbias R DUT R D UTiRSiAmpSvAmpSi R GvOutSB Figure 4-1. Piezoresi stor noise measurement A) setup and B) small circuit noise representation. 89

PAGE 90

1 bias R 2 biasR3 bias R D i R GbatteryVA 1 bias R 2 biasR3 biasRi R D R G1 biasiRS 2 biasiRS 3 biasiRS iDS iAmpS vAmpS vOutSB Figure 4-2. Diode noise measurement A) setup and B) small circuit noise representation. Al, 1% Si SiO2P-type VDCC Figure 4-3. Capacitance-Voltage m easurement setup adapter from Sah. 90

PAGE 91

CHAPTER 5 FABRICATION AND MEASUREMENT RESULTS In Chapter 3, we presented the design of the test structures and in Chapter 4 the experimental methods. In this Chapter, we show the fabricated test structures and the measurement results. We start with the fabrication results of the test structures and follow with the measurements results which include the I-V ch aracteristics for the piezoresistors and diodes, the sheet resistance, the p-type capacitor, and the noise voltage PSD of the piezoresistors and the diodes. We use these measurements to compare the theoretical design results to the fabricated test structures and to monitor the effect of ann ealing time and the effect of the number of carriers on the 1 /f noise. 5.1 Implantation, Solid-Source, and Annealing of Test Structures The test structures were fa bricated at Coresystems, Georgia Institute of Technology, MEMS-exchange and at the UF na nofabrication clean room. The pr ocess flows are detailed in Appendix D. The ion implantation of the piezo resistors was done at Coresystems. Test structures using generation 1 processes were annealed at MEMS-exchange while those of generation 2 processes were annealed at Georgia Institute of Technology. The geometry of the fabricated test structures of generation 2 is the same as those of generation 1 with exceptions in the diode and capacitor dimensions. The process va riables of ion implantation, annealing, oxide and nitride thickness were varied in generation 2. We presen t the fabrication results and measurements of all the tests structures of ge neration 2 since a combination of the results is needed to monitor the process dependence on 1 /f noise and to correlate the low frequency noise to defect densities. We present the results of piezoresistors gene ration 1 to study the effect of the number of carriers on the 1 /f noise. 91

PAGE 92

5.2 Characterization of Fa bricated Test Structures Prior to the study of the process dependence of 1 /f noise, we electrical ly characterize the fabricated generation 2 process te st structures such as piezor esistors, p-type capacitors, P/N diodes, Van der Pauw and Hall Effect structures for two reasons; fi rst, it is used to compare the measurements to the theoretically predicted resu lts. Second, the charact erization of the test structures help to extract parameters such as oxide thickness and Hall shee t coefficient, compute the interface trap density and num ber of carriers. It also pr ovides the linear range of the piezoresistor with the I-V charact erization of the piezoresistor a nd the junction leakage current of the piezoresistor. 5.2.1 Piezoresistor Test Structures A comparison of the theoretical design to the fabricated piezoresistors is presented in terms of resistances, profiles, and oxide thicknesse s. The I-V characteristics are used to obtain the resistances of the fabricated junction isolat ed piezoresistors of each fabrication process. Table 5-1 shows the measured resistances of piez oresistors 6 and 9 when the piezoresistor is biased from -10 V to 10 V. In that voltage range the I-V curve is linear. Therefore, the piezoresistors can be biased up to 10 V during the noise measurement. Process 2A, which correspond to a boron implant at 20 keV with a dose of 7x1014 cm-2 at 7o tilt follow by a thermal oxidation of 5 min dry, 5 min we t and 10 min dry at 900 C, has a theoretical resistance of 1559.6 for piezoresistor 6. However, the fabri cated piezoresistor 6 has a resistance around 2200 The theoretical resistance was computed usi ng the profile obtained from the FLOOPS pair model. The FLOOPS pair model profiles are compared to the SIMS profiles. Regarding SIMS accuracy, the SIMS data has a 10 % uncertain ty according to the company that did the measurements. The estimate of the atomic dopant number is affected by the inaccuracy of the 92

PAGE 93

SIMS measurement. Note that the true atomic nu mber will be larger than the true carrier number since not all dopants are el ectrically active and io nized. Instances where this does not hold must be due to inaccuracies in the measurements. Th e profile using the FLOOPS pair model predicted a junction depth of 0.72 m and a surface concentration 2x1019 cm-3 at the Si/SiO2 for all the B 20 keV implant processes. From SIMS proce ss 2A, which corresponds to a boron implant at 20 keV with a dose of 7x1014 cm-2 at 7o tilt followed by a thermal oxida tion of 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C, has a junction depth of 0.54 m and a surface concentration of 1.42 x1019 cm-3. All the theoretical junction depths obta ined from FLOOPS pair model have deeper junction depths than those of the SIMS profiles except for proc ess 2B which correspond to boron implanted at 40 keV through 0.1 m of SiO2 with a dose of 7x1014 cm-2 and annealed for 10 min at 900 C in N2. The as-implant SIMS boron profiles for the 20 keV and 40 keV are shown in Figure 5-1, and Figure 5-2. The respective peak concentrations for the 20 keV and 40 keV from SIMS measurements are 0.08 m and 0.15 m. Th e post annealed profiles obtained with SIMS for the 20 keV, 40 keV and solid source diffusions are shown in Figure 5-3, Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5. The junction depth and surface concentration of each SIMS profile is listed in Table 5-2. The junction depths and surface concentrati ons are about the same. The noise floor of the SIMS is about 1x1017 cm-3 while the background concentrat ion of the wafers is about 1x1016 cm3. The oxide thickness through which the 40 keV boron is implanted shown in Figure 5-4 is 0.089 m. The theoretical profiles for th e solid source diffused piezoresistor were obtained using the analytical calculation. The results show shallower junction depths and higher surface concentrations of the theoretical profiles than those of the measured SIMS. Also, the SIMS profiles show that the surface concentration of the phosphorous in the piezoresistors with 93

PAGE 94

phosphorous counter-doped solid-source diffusion is higher than the phosphorous surface concentration in the phosphorous without phosp horous counter-doped so lid-source diffusion. The piezoresistors with phosphorous counter-doped solid-source di ffusion have deeper junction depths. Next we discuss the fa bricated pMOSC generation 2. 5.2.2 P-type Capacitor Test Structure The p-type capacitors are used to measure th e oxide thickness and the interface trap density (DIT). Two capacitors of different dimensions we re designed. Table 5-3 shows the dimensions of the two capacitors, pMOSC1 and pMOSC2. In Table 5-4, we show the oxide thickness measured with Ellipsometer and pMOSC capac itance-voltage (C-V) m easurements for the implanted and solid source diffused resistors. Th e measured oxide values with the Ellipsometer and the pMOSC C-V are within the range of the theoretical computed values which were 0.02 m for the 20 keV and solid source diffused stru ctures and 0.1 m for the 40 keV implants. Figure 5-7 shows the C-V profile of pMOSC2 of wafer 2E. In Figure 5-7, the DC voltage is varied from -2 V to 6.5 V, from accumulati on to inversion. The accumulation voltage was limited to -2 V to avoid damaging the capacitor. The depletion region of the C-V lies between these two voltages and that is needed to measure the density of interface traps (DIT) using Termans method.19 The theoretical value using an estimated oxide thickness 200 MOSC is 846 pF. Using the measured oxide thickness with the Ellipsometer (252.12 ), the estimated capacitance is 671 pF. From the C-V measurem ent shown in Figure 5-7 at accumulation the measured capacitance is 560 pF and using Equati on 3-17 we compute an oxide thickness of 302 The uncertainty in the oxide thicknesses is estimated to be 5%. This number is based on the inaccuracies of the C-V in the accumulation regi on. The latter electrical oxide thickness obtained from C-V is used since the Ellipsomete r measurements were done prior to completion 94

PAGE 95

of the device while the C-V is measured on the fi nished device. We discuss next the fabricated P/N test structure. 5.2.3 P/N Diode Test Structure The P/N diodes of generation 2 process have tw o sizes. Table 5-5 shows the dimensions of the two P/N diodes. The I-V characteristics of resistor 6, diode 1 and diode 2 are shown in Figure 5-8. Using logarithmic s cale, the reverse bias and forwar d bias currents of diode 1 are shown in Figure 5-9 and Figure 5-10. The magnitude of the reverse bias current at -1 Vdc, -3 Vdc and -10 Vdc are respectively 3.15x10-9, 3.87x10-8, and 1.94 x10-7 A as shown in Figure 5-10 for the current at -1 Vdc. 5.2.4 Van der Pauw Test Structure The Van der Pauw structure is used to compute the sheet resistanceS R the line width W and the contact resistance C R as presented in Chapter 4. Table 5-6 shows the measuredS R W and C R for each of the processes. The sheet resi stance varies between 61.22 for wafer C2 to 224.87 for wafer 2A as shown on Table 5-6. The measuredS R agree with the measured resistances for the implanted piezoresistors. For a given piezoresistor, say R6, the solid source diffused piezoresistors show lowe r resistance than the implanted cases. This can be observed from the measured S R Referring to Equation 5-1, the resistance R is linearly proportional toS R SL RR W (5-1) where L and W are the length and width of the pi ezoresistor. So, for a given ratio LWas S R varies, the resistance, R also changes. The line width,W are about 2 m for all the processes except for the solid sour ce diffused resistors where it is 4.88 m and 2.95 m for C1 95

PAGE 96

and C2 respectively. The contact resistance C R is larger for the implanted piezoresistors and smaller for the solid source diffused ones C1 and C2. Contact resistance,C R is a function of doping concentration. As the doping concentrati on increases, the specif ic contact resistance,c decreases. The contact resistan ce can be obtained from the sp ecific contact resistance using Equation 5-2. c CR A (5-2) where A is the contact area. The specific contact re sistance of aluminum-1.5 % silicon to p-type silicon with doping c oncentration of 1x1019 cm-3 is 1x10-6 2cm .45 Therefore, the theoretical contact resistance is 0.17 However, the measured contact resistances vary between 10.52 to 39.28 An ideal theoretical cont act resistance is very difficult to predict and achieve. Although the measured contact resi stance is higher than the theoretical contact resistance, the value of the contact resistance, 39.28 is negligible compared to the resistance of the resistor channel, 2200. Therefore, the contact resistance does not affect the measured noise voltage PSD. Next we discuss the Hall Effect measurements. 5.2.5 Hall Effect Test Structure The Hall Effect measurements as described in Chapter 4 have been performed on each implant, solid-source, and annealing process. The Hall Effect measurement allows the computation of the electri cal active dopant that is needed to compute the number of carriers used in the calculation of the Hooge parameter. Figure 5-11, Figure 5-12, Figure 5-13, and Figure 5-14 show the plot of magnetic field, Z B versus the product of the magnetic field, Z B and the sheet hall coefficientSH R The positive slope indicates a p-type doping profile and gives 96

PAGE 97

the value ofSH R Knowing SH R we then can compute the active dopant c oncentration Table 5-7 shows the computed active dopant concentration the SIMS dose, Q, and the fraction of activated dose,AANAAN AANQ In some cases, such as pro cess 2E, the calculated electrically active dose exceeds 100 %. This discrepancy is due to errors in the SIMS and Hall effect measurements. The maximum possible percentage for the electrically active dose is 100%. 5.3 Investigation of Process Dependence of 1/F Noise In this section, we measured the noise voltage PSD of each generation 2 process and monitor the low frequency noise as a function of increased anneal time with fixed temperature. The noise measurements of piezoresistors fabricat ed with the process flow shown in Table 3.4 are presented. In generation 2 process, there ar e nine processes that ha ve been used in the fabrication of piezoresistors as shown in Chapte r 3, Section 3.7.2 in order to investigate the process dependence of 1 /f noise. The I-V characteristic s and the noise voltage PSDs of piezoresistor for the implanted piezoresistors and for the solid source diffused piezoresistors are presented. The reason why is used for the solid source diffused piezoresistors is because they have a resistance that is the closest to for the implanted piezoresistors. For each process, three noise voltage PSDs were measured at the same bias voltage. The average and standard deviation of th e three noise voltage PSDs of each process was then computed. The noise voltage PSDs are pres ented as a function of the implant condition and annealing processes. The average noise voltage PSDs of the piezoresistors implanted at 20 keV, the average noise voltage PSDs of the piezoresist ors implanted at 40 keV, and the average noise voltage PSDs of the solid source diff used piezoresistors are presented. 6 R 9 R 9 R 6 R 97

PAGE 98

5.3.1 Noise PSD of Piezoresistors R6 for B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, and 7o Tilt The voltage PSD is compared for 20 keV B implanted samples subjected to different annealing times at 900 C. A model is that as th e anneal time increases, th e bulk defect densities decrease. A decrease of defects should result in a reduction of the 1 /f noise PSD. In order to investigate this model hypothesis, piezoresistors are implanted at 20 keV B and annealed at 900 C with times of 20 min, 30 min and 50 min. The defect densities are monitored via the measured 1 /f noise voltage PSDs of the piezoresistors. Th e annealing conditions of the test structures implanted with 20 keV B, at 7x1014 cm-2 dose, and 7o tilt are shown in Table 5-7. The I-V characteristics are obtained by varying the volta ge from -10 V to 10 V and are shown in Figure 5-15 for process 2A. The three noise voltage PSDs of three piezoresistors of wafer 2A (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C) at same bias voltage are shown in Figure 5-16. The average and standard deviation of the three noise voltage PSDs are shown in Figure 5-17. The IV characteristics, the three noise voltage PSDs at same bias voltage of three piezoresistors R6 and the average noise voltage PSDs of wafer 2E (10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) and wafer 1A (30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) are also measur ed. In Figure 5-18, we show the average noise PSDs of wafer 2A, wafer 2E, and wafer 1A which have respec tive corner frequencies are 1900 Hz, 1530 Hz and 958 Hz. The longer the annealing condition (inert and oxidation), th e lower is the noise voltage PSDs and the smaller the corner frequency. In Figure 5-18, process 2A has a higher noise voltage PSD, followed by process 2E, then by process 1A. The annealing time of process 2A, 2E and 1A are 20 min, 30 min and 50 min at 900 C respectively. The uncertainty of the Hooge parameter is obtained by propagating the uncertain ties of the measured values such as the PSD, the number of carriers, the power dependence of the frequency,6 R and the bias voltage. Three 98

PAGE 99

PSDs are measured for each process. The uncer tainties in the PSDs used to estimate the uncertainty in the Hooge parameter are computed using2 '' 224xx bxx xxGf f Gf Gf (5.3) and 1effrxx dGf n (5.4) The normalized mean square uncertainty2xxGf is obtained through (5.5) 222xx bxx rxxGfGfGf where b and r are the normalized bias and random uncertainties, xxGf is the power spectral density, f is the bandwidth, and is the number of average. The Hooge parameter for each PSD is obtained using6 effdn 2vSNf V (5-6) The uncertainty associated with the Hooge pa rameter of each of the three PSDs is obtained using46 122 22 2 22 2 12 2 1122JX XX J r JJU UU X UX X rrr rrXXrXXrXX (5.7) 99

PAGE 100

where is an experimental resu lt which is a function of measured variablesrJi X rU ris the relative uncertainty of the result and iX iU X are the relative uncertainties for each variable. The fitted line is obtained from MatLab curve fitting tool, cftool The Hooge parameter is computed at 1 Hz. This makes the frequency f independent of the factor The value of the PSD at 1 Hz used to compute the Hooge parameter is obtained from the fitted line at 1 Hz. The Hooge parameter of each process is obtained by taking th e average of three Hooge parameters extracted as described above on three differ ent devices. The uncertainty in the Hooge parameter is then obtained by applying Equati on 5-4 to the average shown in Equation 5-5. 1233 (5.8) Figure 5-16, shows the PSDs wit hout the setup noise of three different piezoresistors of process 2A (B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt and 5 min dry, 5 min we t and 10 min dry at 900 C). Figure 5-19, shows the uncertainties of the PSDs fo r each different piezoresistor of process 2A. The fitted lines of the three PSDs of proce ss 2A are shown in Figure 5-20. The Hooge parameters for each of the three piezoresistors m easured to characterize pr ocess 2A are shown in Table 5-8. The Hooge parameters for all the processes ar e shown in Table 5-9. The Hooge parameter for processes 2A, 2E and 1A are respectively 4.41x10-4 1.38x10-4, 3.42x10-4 1.17x10-4, 1.06x10-4 3.77x10-5. The noise voltage PSD shows that as the annealing time increases, the 1 /f noise PSD and the Hooge parameters decrease for the 20 keV B annealed at 900 C. The uncertainties in the extracted Hooge parameter ma ke a definitive conclusion difficult. Extensive measurements over a wider range of process conditions are recommended for future work. 100

PAGE 101

5.3.2 Noise PSD of Piezoresistors R6 for B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 The voltage PSD is compared for 40 keV B implanted samples subjected to different annealing times at 900 C. The decrease of the de fect densities are monitored via the measured 1 /f noise voltage PSD of the piezoresistors. The piezoresistors implanted at 40 keV are annealed at 900 C with times of 10 min, 30 min, 50 min and 90 min. The same measurements described in Section 5.3.1 for the I-V characteristics and average noise voltage PSDs are performed for the wafers implanted at B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2. Figure 5-21 shows the average noise voltage PSDs of wafer 2B and wafe r 5A which were not oxidized after the inert anneals as shown in Table 5-8. The corner fr equency for wafer 2B is 1790 Hz and 1680 Hz for wafer 5A. The longer the anneal ing condition (inert) the lower is the noise voltage PSDs and the smaller the corner frequency. Processes 2B a nd 5A are annealed respectively for 10 min and 90 min respectively at 900 C and the noise voltage of pr ocess 2B is higher than that of process 5A. Figure 5-22 shows the average noise voltage PSDs of wafer 3E and wafer 4A with respective corner frequencies of 442 Hz and 2960 Hz. The annealing conditions of process 3E and 4A are shown in Table 5-8. In contrast to wafer 2B and wafer 5A, the wafer 4A with the longer the annealing condition (inert and oxi dation) shows higher noise and co rner frequency than wafer 3E with shorter annealing. The Hooge parameter is computed as described in Section 5.3.1 with the number carriers obtained from Hall Effect measur ement of process 2B, 3E, 4A and 5A. Table 58 shows the Hooge parameters. The Hooge parameter for pro cesses 2B, 5A, 3E, and 4A are respectively 9.67x10-4 4.13x10-4, 4.94x10-4 1.73x10-4, 8.58x10-5 2.84x10-5, 7.97x10-4 3.15x10-4. As the annealing time increases, the 1 /f noise PSDs and the Hooge parameters for processes 2B and 5A that were not oxidized decrease. However, for the oxidized processes 3E and 4A where the annealing time increases, the noise voltage PSD also increases. The 40 keV 101

PAGE 102

with oxidation gives unexpected resu lts. This could be explained by the faulted loop areas in the piezoresistors as discussed in Chapter 6. 5.3.3 Noise PSD of Solid-Source Diffused Piez oresistors R9 of Wafers C1 and C2 Solid source diffusion is used to avoid dama ge created in the pi ezoresistor during ion implantation. However, interface traps at the Si/SiO2 interface are sti ll present in the piezoresistors. Hence, 1 /f noise can still originate from the in terface traps. To study the effect of the interface traps on the 1 /f noise two processes for solid sour ce diffusion were made. Process C1 was solid source diffused with B for 25 min at 950 C while process C2 was first solid source diffused with B for 25 min at 950 C and then solid source diffused with P for 5 min at 800 C. The phosphorous solid source diffusion is used to re duce the interaction of the carriers with the interface traps during device operati on. Piezoresistor test structure 9 is used for the noise measurements because it has a resistance in some cases comparable to each other and comparable to those of R6 for the implanted resistors in other cases. The I-V characteristics are shown in Figure 5-23 and Figure 5-24 for proces s C1 and C2 respectively. The I-V of both processes are linear from -10 V to 10 V, but those of C2 do not overlap as reflected in the observed variation of resistances as shown in Table 5-1. The av erage noise voltage PSDs of C1 and C2 are shown in Figure 5-25. The average nois e voltage PSD of wafer C2 is lower than that of wafer C1 and their respectiv e corner frequencies 112 Hz are and 418 Hz. The lower average noise voltage PSD of C2 could be due to the pho sphorus deposition after the boron diffusion. It is possible that surface traps may not play an important role in the noise magnitude of C2 since the phosphorous near the surface would push the hol es distribution away from the surface traps at the Si/SiO2 interface. The surf ace trap density is computed in the next chapter. The other possible explanation for lower noise is a larger number of carriers N To verify this assumption, we substituted the number of carriers of C2 into the Hooge expression of the 1 /f noise, Equation 102

PAGE 103

2-17, at 1 Hz. The noise voltage PSD resulting from that computation, pr esented in Figure 5-26, shows a decrease in the noise voltage PSD; however, the value of the noise voltage PSD of C1 at 1 Hz does not overlap with that of C2 at 1 Hz Although, the Hooge mode l is based on mobility fluctuations (bulk defects), it is used as a figure of merit for the solid source diffused piezoresistors which have much lo wer bulk defects and where the 1 /f noise is presumably due to carrier fluctuations (surface def ects). The Hooge parameter is co mputed obtained as described in Section 5.3.1 with the number car riers obtained from Ha ll Effect measurement of process C1 and C2. Table 5-8 shows the Hooge parameters. Th e Hooge parameter for process C1 and C2 are respectively 6.89x10-4 2.92x10-4, and 2.38x10-4 1.20x10-4. The noise voltage PSD shows that the process, C2, with phosphorus solid source diffusion has lower1 /f noise voltage PSD and Hooge parameters than the proc ess without phosphorous, C1. In the absence of ion implantation induced defects, the noise voltage PSD measurements indicate that the phosphorus solid source diffusion may play a role in the noise reduction by keeping the holes away from the interface traps. Next we analyze the noise voltage. 5.4 Hooge Parameter and 1/F Noise Analysis and Discussion In this section, we analyz e the measured noise voltage PSDs in terms of their Hooge parameter As mentioned earlier, the Hooge paramete r is employed as an empirical a figure of merit of the quality of the crystal. There are other models such as the McWhorter model7 which is based on the carrier fluctuation. The number of carriers, used to compute the Hooge parameter is estimated from Hall effect measurements. The uncertainty in is obtained by propagating the uncertainties of the dose and of the areaN NQ A NQA (5.9) 103

PAGE 104

After diffusion, the length and width of the resi stor differ from that of the actual mask. The largest possible increase in the width and length is2 j x where j x is the junction depth as illustrated in Figure 5-27. For the measured resi stors, the length and widths are 245 m and 24.3 m respectively. The junction depth m easured with SIMS is 0.5 m. Thus 2 j x is 1 m. A 3 % uncertainty in the area was used to account for late ral diffusion. The Hooge parameters of all the processes are shown in Table 5-8 where it is obse rved that the Hooge parameter decreases as the defect density decreases with in creased annealing time except for processes 3E and 4A. In these two processes implanted with B 40 keV and subj ected to inert anneal and oxidation, the PSDs appear to track the faulted loop area s as it is discusse d in Chapter 6. Current crowding on metal c ontacts has been studied by Murrmann and Widmann.47 Current crowding may cause localized heating a nd thus play a role in electromigration. However, the current density in the resistor durin g noise measurement is very low; for example, the current density used during th e measurement of process 2A is 22.56x10 Acm2, over three orders of magnitude lower than the typical current density th reshold for electromigration. Therefore, current crowding is not an issue in the measurements. During oxidation, boron segregates into the silicon dioxi de. Therefore, there is a re duction of the boron dose in the silicon. The implanted boron dose was 7x1014 cm-2. Using the SIMS profiles after oxidation, the boron dose in the silicon varies from 4.5x1014 to 6.7x1014 cm-2. This indicates that approximately 36 % to 4.3 % of the boron dose resides in the silic on dioxide. The effect of the boron inside the silicon dioxide on the measured no ise PSD needs to be studied. 5.5 Shot Noise Measurements The shot noise is measured on piezoresistors in stead of the fabricated P/N diodes to have an insight of the quality of the defects in the pi ezoresistors. The P/N diode I-V characteristics of 104

PAGE 105

resistor 6, diode 1 and diode 2 of process 1A of generation 2 are shown in Figure 5-8. Figure 528 shows the shot noise of R6 for process 1A. Th e current used for the measurement is taken in the linear region of the I-V. The shot noise m easurements of piezoresistor R6 of process 1A reveal the presence of high density bulk and surf ace defects. The shot noise magnitude given by Equation 2-21 is obtained in the measurement at high frequencies (> 1x104 Hz). This is an indication of significant def ects in the crystal lattice. 5.6 Number of Carrier Dependence of 1/F Noise In this section we study the ef fect of the number of carrier s on the low frequency noise. We use piezoresistor test structures 1, 6 and 12 of generation 1 process for the investigation. The process flow of generation 1 process is described in Appendix D. 5.6.1 Fabrication and Measurements of Test Structures The test structures have been fabricated at MEMS-exchange, Coresy stems and at the UF nanofabrication clean room. ME MS-exchange services have b een used for the annealing treatments. The ion implantations of piezoresi stors have been done at Coresystems. As discussed in Chapter 3, piezoresi stors were designed to have th e same resistance with different surface areas and volumes. In Figure 5-29 we show the top views and a cross-section of piezoresistors test structures 7 (R1B7N), 8 (R1B8E) and 9 (R1B9W) which have different dimensions but respective resistance values of 8217.17 8209.27 and 8419.17 Measured resistances of the fabricated junction isolated piezoresi stors are shown in Table 5-10. The boron profile obtained via secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) performed by Evans Analytical Group is shown in Figure 5-30. In Figure 5-30, the surface concentration is about 1x1018 cm-3 and junction depth is abou t 2.27 m. The Van der Pauw structures are used to measure the sheet resistance, line width, and cont act resistance. The measured sheet resistance is 105

PAGE 106

178.70 / The line width and contact resistance using Equation 3-20 and Equation 3-21 are respectively 0.018 m and 4 5.6.1 Noise PSD Measurements In order to explore the number of carrier and surface to volume ratio dependency of 1 /f noise, we perform noise measuremen ts on piezoresistors and 1, 2, 3 and 12. Piezoresistors 1, 2, and 3 have the same resistance but different num ber of carriers while piezoresistor 12 have a different resistance and number of carrier. Table 5-10 shows th e piezoresistor nomenclatures and their resistances. In Table 5-10, the nomencl ature R1B1W means piezo resistor of row 1, from quadrant B in the wafer, piezo resistor test structur e 1 and location west in the chip. This allows us to avoid measuring the same piezoresistor multiple times. The number of carriers used to compute the Hooge parameter is extracted using the SIMS profiles since there was no space reserved for Hall Effect measurement. Although SIMS gives the atomic concentration of the dopant, it will be sufficient for our application wh ich is to see how the num ber of carriers affects the 1 /f noise. However, the number of carriers obta in from SIMS is not appropriate for the computation of the Hooge parameter. The number of carriers, is obtained by multiplying the dose, Q obtained from the SIMS profile with the piezoresistor areaN A NQA (5-10) The I-V characteristics and noise voltage power spectral density (PSD) of three piezoresistor test structures 1 have been measur ed. Figure 5-31 shows th e I-V characteristic of piezoresistor R1B1W at three bias voltages. The noise voltage PSDs are shown in Figure 5-32. The corner frequency, which is the frequency at which the 1 /f noise and the thermal noise coincide, when the piezoresistor is biased at 4.65 V dc is larger than 12.8 kHz. Figure 5-33 shows the I-V characteristic of piezoresistor R3A 12E. The noise voltage PSD is shown in Figure 106

PAGE 107

5-34. The corner frequency when the piezoresistor is biased at 1.48 V dc is around 70 Hz. At the same bias voltage, piezoresistor 12 has less noise and smaller corner frequency than piezoresistor 1. To obtain insight about the de fect concentration in the pi ezoresistor bulk, shot noise measurements are performed on the junction isolated piezoresistor test structure 1. First, the I-V characteristic of the P/N diode as shown in Figur e 5-35 is measured. The shot noise is measured for currents of 1.54x10-7, 3.30x10-7, and 4.81x10-7 A, which are in the linear region of the P/N diode I-V characteristic. Figure 5-36 shows the shot noise of piezoresistor test structure 1. In Figure 5-36, the corner frequencyc f is 10 Hz (I = 1.54 x10-7) which is much lower than that of resistor 6 of process 1A. 5.6.2 Analysis and Discussion In this section, we analyze the measured noi se voltage PSDs in terms of their number of carriers and dimensions (surface ar ea and volume). In this secti on it is shown how the number of carriers affects the low noise frequency. Piezoresistor 1 has been designed to have a smaller area than piezoresistor 12. Figure 5-37 shows the noise voltage PSDs of piezoresi stor test structure 1 (R1B1W) and piezoresistor test structure 12 (R3A12E) biased at 1.49 Vdc and 1.48 Vdc respectively. In Figure 5-37, th e noise voltage PSD of piezoresi stor test structure 12 (R3A12E) is smaller than that of piezoresistor test structur e 1 (R1B1W). This may be due to the fact of a larger number of carriers for pi ezoresistor test st ructure 12 (R3A12E). Hooges empirical relation of the 1 /f noise (Equation 2-17) shows that the 1 /f noise is inversely proportional to the number of carriers, To further investigate the effect of the number of carriers we perform noise measurements of three piezoresistors with identical resistances. Some piezoresistors were designed to have the same resistance value and different surface area and volume. This is for N 107

PAGE 108

example the case of piezores istor test structures 1, 2 and 3. As shown in Table 3-1, piezoresistor test structure 3 has the larger surface area and volume followed by piezoresistor test structure 2 and piezoresistor test structure 1. In addition, these piezoresistors have the same junction depth thus different number of carriers. Th e effect of the surface at the Si/SiO2 interface cannot be used for the noise analysis since all piezoresi stors have the same surface to volume ratio. A same surface to volume ratio means that the carriers in the piezoresistors are equally affected by the surface traps. Therefore, the main parameter that affects the 1 /f noise is the number of carriers. Figure 5-38 A) and B) show the noise voltage PSDs of piezoresistor test structures 1, 2 and 3 biased respectively at 4.69 Vdc, 4.80 Vd c and 4.88 Vdc. In Figure 5-38 A), among the three piezoresistor test structures, piezoresistor test structure 3 which ha s the largest number of carriers has the lowest 1 /f noise voltage PSD. Figure 5-38 B) shows the noise PSD at 10 Hz for piezoresistors123, and R RR at the same bias voltage as a function of number of carriers. The noise voltage PSD decreases as th e number of carrier increases. 5.7 Summary The fabricated test structures and the measur ements based on the experimental methods of Chapter 4 have been presented. The carrier concentrations using the Hall measurement, and the sheet resistance, contact resistance and line width using the Van de r Pauw structure are measured. The C-V of the pMOSC is presented and the oxide thickness computed. The I-V of the piezoresistors is linear from -10 V to 10 V. It is shown th at the average noise voltage PSDs for the implanted piezoresistors decreases as the annealing time increases for the 20 keV implant and for the 40 keV process without oxidation. However, an exception of the decrease of the 1 /f noise with longer annealing is ob served for the 40 keV process, 3E and 4A, with oxidation. The process with longer annealed time, 4A, has higher noise voltage PSD magnitude than of 3E with 108

PAGE 109

shorter anneal time. The measured shot noise for the generation 2 process coincides with the theoretical shot noise at high frequencies (>1x104 Hz) which is an indication of the presence of defects in the crystal. The 1 /f noise dominates at low frequencie s. The shot noise of generation 1 process shows a corner frequency at 10 Hz. This indicates less bulk defect s in the piezoresistor of the generation 1 process. The effect of the number of carriers was st udied with resistors of different resistance and dimensi ons as well as resistors of sa me resistance and different dimensions. The noise voltage PSDs show that re sistors with larger number of carriers have less 1 /f noise. Next, the defects in the test structures are measured and the analyses of the relations of the defects to the measured noise voltage PSD of piezoresistor generation 2 are also performed. 109

PAGE 110

Table 5-1. Resistance of piezore sistors of generation 2 process. Implant and annealing Piezoresistor ( ) B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt R6 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C (2A) 2288, 2277, 2269 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (2E) 2188, 2198, 2212 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (1A) 2153, 2173, 2149 B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2through 0.1 m of SiO2 R6 10 min N2 at 900 C (2B) 2010, 2019, 2009 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (3E) 2206, 2229, 2203 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (4A) 2160, 2178, 2145 90 min N2 at 900 C (5A) 1688, 1681, 1670 Solid source diffusion of B, 25 min, 950 C R9 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (C1) 4337, 4367, 4387 Solid source diffusions of B, 25 min, 950 C and P, 5 min, 800 C R9 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (C2) 2277, 2653, 3586 Table 5-2. The junction depths and surface concentrations of SIMS profiles of generation 2 process. Implant and annealing conditions Junction Depth (m) Surface concentration (cm-3) B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C (2A) 0.54 1.42x1019 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (2E) 0.46 1.80x1019 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (1A) 0.53 1.78x1019 B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2through 0.1 m of SiO2 10 min N2 at 900 C (2B) 0.58 1.46x1019 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (3E) 0.47 1.69x1019 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (4A) 0.52 2.17x1019 90 min N2 at 900 C (5A) 0.59 3.45x1019 Solid source diffusion of B, 25 min, 950 C 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (C1) 0.85 1.15x1019 Solid source diffusions of B, 25 min, 950 C and P, 5 min, 800 C 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (C2) 0.97 1.63x1019 Table 5-3. Dimensions of the pMOSC1 and pMOSC2 of generation 2 process. Sructure Dimension (m) pMOSC1 400 x 400 pMOSC2 700 x 700 110

PAGE 111

Table 5-4. Measured oxide thicknesses with Ellipsometer and pMOSC C-V of generation 2 process. Implant and annealing conditions Ellipsometer () pMOSC () B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C (2A) 231.75 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (2E) 252.12 301.68 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (1A) 253.32 327.35 B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2through 0.1 m of SiO2 10 min N2 at 900 C (2B) 1003.2 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (3E) 1131.40 1252.00 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (4A) 1079.40 1148.80 90 min N2 at 900 C (5A) 962.52 1065.70 Solid source diffusion of B, 25 min, 950 C 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (C1) 276.33 313.25 Solid source diffusions of B, 25 min, 950 C and P, 5 min, 800 C 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (C2) 264.19 303.93 Table 5-5. Dimensions of the thr ee P/N diodes of generation 2 process. Sructure Dimension (m) Resistor 6 245 x 24.33 Diode 1 371.7 x 332.9 Diode 2 571.7 x 523.9 Table 5-6. MeasuredS R and W C R of generation 2 processes. Annealing RS ( ) W (m) RC ( ) B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C (2A) 224.87 2.04 28.98 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (2E) 217.02 2.20 27.00 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (1A) 210.23 2.16 25.43 B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2through 0.1 m of SiO2 10 min N2 at 900 C (2B) 194.03 1.92 24.02 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (3E) 215.08 1.97 39.28 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (4A) 205.19 1.79 28.71 90 min N2 at 900 C (5A) 165.44 2.24 22.60 Solid source diffusion of B, 25 min, 950 C 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (C1) 91.07 4.88 14.51 Solid source diffusions of B, 25 min, 950 C and P, 5 min, 800 C 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (C2) 61.22 2.95 10.52 111

PAGE 112

Table 5-7. Computed electrical active dose, implanted dose, Q, and fraction of active dose AAN AANQ for each generation 2 process. Implant, solid-source and anneal condition NAA (cm-2) Q (cm-2) NAA / Q (%) B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C (2A) 5.6x1014 5.6x1013 4.7x1014 4.1x1013 85 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (2E) 4.6x1014 4.6x1013 4.9x1014 3.1x1012 108 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (1A) 5.2x1014 5.2x1013 5.2x1014 3.9x1013 101 B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2through 0.1 m of SiO2 10 min N2 at 900 C (2B) 4.5x1014 4.5x1013 6.4x1014 8.1x1013 142 90 min N2 at 900 C (5A) 6.7x1014 6.7x1013 6.3x1014 1.3x1012 94 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (3E) 4.6x1014 4.6x1013 5.3x1014 6.0x1013 116 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (4A) 5.6x1014 5.6x1013 4.7x1014 5.4x1013 83 Solid source diffusion of B, 25 min, 950 C 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (C1) 7.3x1014 7.3x1013 7.6x1014 7.9x1012 NA Solid source diffusions of B, 25 min, 950 C and P, 5 min, 800 C 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (C2) 1.1 x1015 1.1x1014 1.5x1015 1.8x1013 NA Table 5-8. Hooge parameters of each of the three piezoresistors of process 2A (B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C). Process Hooge parameter 2A1R6 6.27x10-4 1.13x10-4 2A2R6 2.55x10-4 4.37x10-5 2A3R6 4.39x10-4 8.30x10-5 Table 5-9. Hooge parameter using number of carrier obtained from Hall Effect measurements of generation 2 process. Implant and Annealing B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C (2A) 4.41x10-4 1.38x10-4 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (2E) 3.42x10-4 1.17x10-4 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (1A) 1.06x10-4 3.77x10-5 B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2through 0.1 m of SiO2 10 min N2 at 900 C (2B) 9.67x10-4 4.13x10-4 90 min N2 at 900 C (5A) 4.94x10-4 1.73x10-4 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (3E) 8.58x10-5 2.84x10-5 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (4A) 7.97x10-4 3.15x10-4 Solid source diffusion of B, 25 min, 950 C 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (C1R9) 6.89x10-4 2.92x10-4 Solid source diffusions of B, 25 min, 950 C and P, 5 min, 800 C 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (C2R9) 2.38x10-4 1.20x10-4 112

PAGE 113

Table 5-10. Resistance of fabricated junction isolated piezore sistors of generation 1 process. Piezoresistor test structure Xj ( m) L ( m) W ( m) (L/W) R ( ) 1 (R1B1W) 2.27 70 13.9 5.04 757.63 2 (R1A2N) 2.27 105 20.85 5.04 780.73 3 (R1B3S) 2.27 122.5 24.33 5.04 811.00 4 (R1A4W) 2.27 140 13.90 10.07 1524.27 5 (R1A5N) 2.27 210 20.85 10.07 1603.56 6 (R1A6W) 2.27 245 24.33 10.07 1611.01 7 (R1B7N) 2.27 700 13.90 50.36 8217.17 8 (R1B8E) 2.27 1050 20.85 50.36 8209.27 9 (R1B9E) 2.27 1225 24.33 50.36 8419.17 10 (R1B10N) 2.27 1400 13.90 100.72 15843.87 11 (R1B11N) 2.27 2100 20.85 100.72 16188.90 12 (R3A12E) 2.27 2450 24.33 100.72 16496.49 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 Depth (m)Concentration (cm-3) B, 20keV, 7e14cm-2, 7o tilt as-implant into silicon Figure 5-1. As-implant profile s of boron with B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt of generation 2 process. 113

PAGE 114

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 Depth (m)Concentration (cm-3) 40keV, 7e14cm-2 as-implant through 1000 A of oxide into silicon SiO2 Si Figure 5-2. As-implant profile s of boron with B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 of generation 2 process. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 Depth (m)Concentration (cm-3) 2A Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C) 2E Inert anneal (10 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 1A Inert anneal (30 min at 900C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt SiO2 Si Figure 5-3. SIMS profiles of wafers with B, 20 keV, 7e14 cm-2, 7o tilt of generation 2 process. 114

PAGE 115

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 Depth (m)Concentration (cm-3) 3E Inert anneal (10 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 2B Inert anneal (10 min dry at 900 C) 4A Inert anneal (30 min at 900C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) SiO2 B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 Si5A Inert anneal (90 min dry at 900 C) Figure 5-4. SIMS profiles of wafers with B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 of generation 2 process. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 Depth (m)Concentration (cm-3)SiO2/Si interface B in C2 C2 (Solid source diffusion B, 25 min, 950 C and P, 5 min, 800 C), Inert anneal (30 min at 900 C), Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) P in C1 B in C1 C1 (Solid source diffusion B, 25 min, 950 C), Inert anneal (30 min at 900 C), Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) P in C2 Figure 5-5. SIMS profiles of solid-source diffused wafers C1 a nd C2 of generation 2 process. 115

PAGE 116

Figure 5-6. Piezoresist or test structure 9 of generation 2 process. -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 525 530 535 540 545 550 555 560 565 Voltage (V)Capacitance (pF)B, 20keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tiltInert anneal (10 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet, 10 min dry at 900 C) 2E Figure 5-7. C-V measurement of pMOSC2 of wafer 2E of generation 2 process. 116

PAGE 117

-0.5 0 0.5 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Volta g e ( V ) Current (mA)B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tiltDiode 1 Diode 2 Resistor 6 1A Inert anneal (30 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) Figure 5-8. I-V characteristics of Resistor 6, Diode 1 and Diode 2 of process 1A of generation 2 process. -2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 x 10-9 Volta g e ( V ) C urren t (A ) Diode 1 B, 20 keV, 7e14 cm-2, 7o tilt 1A Inert anneal (30 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) Thermal generation in the depletion region Figure 5-9. Logarithmic scale of the reve rse bias Diode 1 of generation 2 process. 117

PAGE 118

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 Voltage (V)Current (A)B, 20 keV, 7e14 cm-2, 7o tilt 1A Inert anneal (30 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) Diode 1 Figure 5-10. Forward bias current of Diode 1 of generation 2 process. 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0.5 1 1.5 2 x 108 RSH2A = 1.30x104 1130 cm2/C 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0.5 1 1.5 2 x 108 RSH2E = 1.26x104 80 cm2/C 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0.5 1 1.5 2 x 108 Bz (G)Bz RSH (G*cm2/C)RSH1A = 1.19x104 890 cm2/C Figure 5-11. Sheet hall coefficientSH R for the B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt implanted piezoresistors of generation 2 process. 118

PAGE 119

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 2 4 6 8 10 12 x 107 RSH2B = 9708 1234 cm2/C 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 2 4 6 8 10 12 x 107 Bz (G)Bz RH (G*cm2/C)RSH5A = 9915 21 cm2/C Figure 5-12. Sheet hall coefficientSH R for the B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 implanted piezoresistors subjected to only inert annealing of generation 2 process. 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 5 10 15 x 107 RSH3E = 1.16x104 1300 cm2/C 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 5 10 15 x 107 Bz (G)Bz RSH (G*cm2/C)RSH4A = 1.32x104 1530 cm2/C Figure 5-13. Sheet hall coefficientSH R for the B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 implanted piezoresistors subjected to iner t annealing and oxidation of generation 2 process. 119

PAGE 120

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0 5 10 x 107 RSHC1 = 8183 86 cm2/C 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0 5 10 x 107 Bz RSH (G*cm2/C)Bz (G) RSHC2 = 3946 45 cm2/C Figure 5-14. Sheet hall coefficientSH R for the solid source diffused piezoresistors of generation 2 process. -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Current (mA)Voltage (V) 2A1 R6 (2288 ) 2A2 R6 (2277 ) 2A3 R6 (2269 ) Figure 5-15. I-V characteris tic of resistor 6 of wafer 2A of generation 2 process. 120

PAGE 121

100 101 102 103 104 10-16 10-15 10-14 10-13 10-12 Fre q uenc y ( Hz ) SVDUT (Vrms 2/Hz) 2A1R6 (2288 ) at 3.34 Vdc 2A2R6 (2277 ) at 3.34 Vdc 2A3R6 (2269 ) at 3.32 Vdc Thermal noise of 2A1R6 Figure 5-16. Noise voltage PSD of piezoresistor R6 of wafer 2A of generation 2 process. 100 101 102 103 104 10-16 10-15 10-14 10-13 10-12 Fre q uenc y ( Hz ) SVDUT (Vrms 2/Hz) 2AR6 average PSD at 3.33 Vdc B, 20keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 70 tilt 2A Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900) Figure 5-17. Noise voltage averag e PSD of three piezoresistors R6 of wafer 2A of generation 2 process. 121

PAGE 122

100 101 102 103 104 10-16 10-15 10-14 10-13 10-12 Frequency (Hz)SVDUT (Vrms 2/Hz)B, 20keV, 7x1014 cm-2, tilt 7o2A at 3.33 0.01 V 2E at 3.32 0.02 V 1A at 3.26 0.03 V2A Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet, 10 min dry at 900 C) 2E Inert anneal (10 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet, 10 min dry at 900 C) 1A Inert anneal (30 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet, 10 min dry at 900 C) Figure 5-18. Noise voltage PSDs average of three piezoresistors R6 of wafer 2A, 2E, and 1A of generation 2 process. 100 101 102 103 104 10-16 10-14 10-12 2A1R6 (2288 ) at 3.34 Vdc Uncertainty 2A1R6 (2288 ) at 3.34 Vdc 2A1R6 (2288 ) at 3.34 Vdc + Uncertainty 100 101 102 103 104 10-16 10-14 10-12 SVDUT (Vrms 2/Hz)2A2R6 (2277 ) at 3.34 Vdc 2A2R6 (2277 ) at 3.34 Vdc Uncertainty 2A2R6 (2277 ) at 3.34 Vdc + Uncertainty 100 101 102 103 104 10-16 10-14 10-12 Frequency (Hz) 2A3R6 (2269 ) at 3.32 Vdc 2A3R6 (2269 ) at 3.32 Vdc Uncertainty 2A3R6 (2269 ) at 3.32 Vdc + Uncertainty 2A1R6 2A2R6 2A3R6 Figure 5-19. PSDs and their uncer tainties of three different piezo resistors of .process 2A (B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C). 122

PAGE 123

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 -15.5 -15 -14.5 -14 -13.5 -13 -12.5 Log10(Frequency (Hz))Log10(SVDUT (Vrms 2/Hz))2A1R6 PSD at 3.34 Vdc 2A2R6 PSD at 3.34 Vdc 2A3R6 PSD at 3.32 Vdc Figure 5-20. The fitted lines of the th ree PSDs of process 2A (B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt and 5 min dry, 5 min wet a nd 10 min dry at 900 C). 100 101 102 103 10 4 10-16 10-15 10-14 10-13 10-12 Frequency (Hz)SVDUT (Vrms 2/Hz)B, 40keV, 7x1014 cm-2, throught 0.1 m of SiO22B at 3.35 0.01 V 5A at 3.37 0.01 V 2B Inert anneal (10 min at 900 C) 5A Inert anneal (30 min at 900 C) Figure 5-21. Noise voltage aver age PSDs of three piezoresistors R6 of wafer 2B and 5A of generation 2 process. 123

PAGE 124

100 101 102 103 10 4 10-16 10-15 10-14 10-13 10-12 Frequency (Hz)SVDUT (Vrms 2 /Hz)B, 40keV, 7x1014 cm-2, throught 0.1 m of SiO23E at 3.34 0.07 V 4A at 3.35 0.02 V4A Inert anneal (30 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet, 10 min dry at 900 C) 3E Inert anneal (10 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet, 10 min dry at 900 C) Figure 5-22. Noise voltage aver age PSDs of three piezoresistors R6 of wafer 3E and 4A of generation 2 process. -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Current (mA)Voltage (V) C11 R9 (4337 ) C12 R9 (4367 ) C13 R9 (4387 ) Figure 5-23. I-V characteristic of piezoresistor R9 of wafer C1 of generation 2 process. 124

PAGE 125

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Current (mA)Voltage (V) C21 R9 (2277 ) C22 R9 (2653 ) C23 R9 (3586 ) Figure 5-24. I-V characteristic of piezoresistor R9 of wafer C2 of generation 2 process. 100 101 102 103 10 4 10-16 10-15 10-14 10-13 10-12 Fre q uenc y ( Hz ) SVDUT (Vrms 2/Hz)C1 Solid source diffusion of B for 25 min at 900 C C2 Solid source diffusions of 1) B for 25 min at 900 C 2) P for 5 min at 800 C C1 at 3.46 0.04 V C2 at 3.41 0.09 V Inert anneal (30 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet, 10 min dry at 900 C) Figure 5-25. Noise voltage average PSDs of three piezoresistors R9 of wafer C1 and C2 of generation 2 process. 125

PAGE 126

100 101 102 103 10 4 10-16 10-15 10-14 10-13 10-12 Frequency (Hz)SVDUT (Vrms 2/Hz)C1 at 3.46 0.04 V PSD of C1 with N of C2 at 1Hz C2 at 3.41 0.09 V Figure 5-26. Noise voltage PSDs of C1 and C2 with N of C2 used for C1 at 1Hz of generation 2 process. L L+2Xj Xj A) B) Resistor dimension in mask Resistor dimension after diffusion xx Figure 5-27. Resistor geometry before and after diffusion, A) plan-view and B) cross-section. 126

PAGE 127

100 101 102 103 104 10 5 10-25 10-24 10-23 10-22 10-21 10-20 10-19 Frequency (Hz)SI (A2 rms/Hz)Theoritical shot noise B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt1A Resistor 6 Figure 5-28. Shot noise of resi stor 6 of process 1A of genera tion 2 of generation 2 process. A1 A2 127

PAGE 128

A3 B Figure 5-29. Top views of piezo resistors test structures 7 A1 ), 8 A2) and 9 A3) and a crosssection B) of generation 1 process. 1.E+15 1.E+16 1.E+17 1.E+18 1.E+19 1.E+20 0.00E+005.00E-011.00E+001.50E+002.00E+002.50E+00Depth ( m)Concentration (cm-3) B,5keV,6e14cm-2 SIMS Figure 5-30. Secondary ion mass spectroscopy (S IMS) obtained from Ev ans Analytical Group for the fabricated piezoresist ors of generation 1 process. 128

PAGE 129

R1B1Wy = 757.63x 9E-05 -8 -4 0 4 8 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 Current (A)Voltage (V) Figure 5-31. I-V characteristic of piezor esistor R1B1W of generation 1 process. 1E-17 1E-16 1E-15 1E-14 1E-13 1E-12 1E-11 1.E+001.E+011.E+021.E+031.E+04 Frequency (Hz)Sv (V2/Hz) Theoritical thermal noise 4.65 Vdc 3.07 Vdc 1.49 Vdc R1B1W Figure 5-32. Noise voltage PSD of R1B1W of generation 1 process. 129

PAGE 130

R3A12Ey = 16496.49x 0.00 -8 -4 0 4 8 -0.0005 -0.00025 0 0.00025 0.000 5 Current (A)Voltage (V) Figure 5-33. I-V characteristic of piezores istor R3A12E of generation 1 process. 1E-16 1E-15 1E-14 1E-13 1E-12 1.E+001.E+011.E+021.E+031.E+0 4 Frequency (Hz)Sv (V2/Hz) Theoritical thermal noise 4.59 Vdc 3.04 Vdc 1.48 VdcR3A12E Figure 5-34. Noise voltage PSD of R3A12E of generation 1 process. 130

PAGE 131

1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1 E 03 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Voltage (V)Current (A) Figure 5-35. I-V characteristic of junction isolated piezoresistor test structure 1 (R1B1W) of generation 1 process. 1E-27 1E-26 1E-25 1E-24 1E-23 1E-22 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 Frequency (Hz)Si (A2/Hz) I = 4.81x10-7 A I = 3.30x10-7 A I = 1.54x10-7 A R1B1W Figure 5-36. Shot noise of pi ezoresistor test structure 1(R1 B1W) of generation 1 process. 131

PAGE 132

1E-17 1E-16 1E-15 1E-14 1E-13 1E-12 1E-11 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 Frequency (Hz)Sv (V2/Hz) R1 (R1B1W) at 1.49 Vdc R12(R3A12E) at 1.48 Vdc Figure 5-37. Noise voltage PSD of piezoresistor test structure 1 (R1B1W) and piezoresistor test structure 12 (R3A12E) are biased resp ectively at 1.49 Vdc and 1.48 Vdc of generation 1 process. 1E-17 1E-16 1E-15 1E-14 1E-13 1E-12 1E-11 1.E+001.E+011.E+021.E+031.E+04 Frequency (Hz)Sv (V2/Hz) R1 (R1B1S) at 4.69 Vdc R2 (R1A2S) at 4.80 Vdc R3(R1A3S) at 4.88 VdcA 132

PAGE 133

1E-14 1E-13 1E-12 1.E+09 4.E+09 7.E+09 1.E+10 Number of carriersSv (V2/Hz) f = 10 Hz R1 (R1B1S) at 4.69 Vdc R2 (R1A2S) at 4.80 Vdc R3(R1A3S) at 4.88 Vdc B Figure 5-38. Noise measurement PSDs A) of piezoresistors123, and R RR at same voltage and B) of number of carriers of piezoresistors123, and R RR at same voltage of generation 1 process. 133

PAGE 134

CHAPTER 6 DEFECTS MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS In this Chapter, further studies of the process dependence of 1 /f noise are performed by using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to vi sualize the bulk defects in the piezoresistors and the high frequency C-V of pMOSC to extr act the density of in terface traps for each fabrication process of generation 2. 6.2 Bulk Defects in Piezoresistors The experimental methods to compute the bu lk defects and interface trap densities were described in Chapter 4. The bul k defects are studied with XTEM and PTEM. In Section 4.4, XTEM and PTEM are described. The sample preparation for XTEM is done with focus ion beam, which allows a thin section of the piezoresistor to be cut from the sample as shown in Figure 6-1. For a PTEM sample preparation, a sa mple is thinned, then a hole a made in the sample. The PTEM are taken with the same magnification for consistency. 6.2.1 Cross-Section Transmissi on Electron Microscopy (XTEM) The XTEM is used to see th e depth of the defects into the samples. The XTEM of piezoresistor implanted with B, 7x1014 cm-2 at 20 keV, 40 keV and solid source diffused are shown in Figure 6-2, Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4. All the implanted piezoresistors show dislocation loops while those that are solid source diffused do not show visible defects. Point defects might still be present in the solid source diffused piezoresistors but they are not visible with XTEM. It is assumed th at all the defects co nsist of dislocation loops. Some loops terminate at the surface which serves a sink for the defects as they gr ow in size during inert annealing and oxidation. The locations of the defects are in the projected range, Rp, which are 0.0658 m and 0.1283 m for 20 keV boron implant in silicon and for 40 keV boron implant in 134

PAGE 135

SiO2 respectively. Since we have found defects in our ion implanted samples, we compute their defect densities using pictures taken from plan view TEM. 6.2.2 Plan View Transmissi on Electron Microscopy (PTEM) To determine the defect densities, we use PTEM since it allows a top vi ew of the defects. We compute the overall defect densities and th e surface terminated defects only for the ion implanted test structures since the solid sour ce diffused ones did not show any visible bulk defects. According to Ostwald ripening process48 smaller defects shrink in favor of larger ones during annealing. Therefore the number of defect density decreases but the dislocation loop size increases as the anneal time increases at fix te mperature. The defect density is computed by taking ten PTEM pictures of each process, counting the defects in each process and dividing by the area. Details of ion implantations and anneal ing conditions are given in Table 5-7 in Chapter 5. Figure 6-5 shows ten PTEM pictures for pr ocess 2A and Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 show the PTEM of the 20 keV and 40 keV impl anted test structures respectivel y. The defect densities are computed from pictures such as those shown in Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 and plotted as function of anneal time. Figure 6-8, Fi gure 6-10 and Figure 6-11 show the defects densities as a function of anneal time for the 20 keV implanted piezor esistor, 40 keV implanted piezoresistors without oxidation and 40 keV implanted piez oresistors with oxidation respectively. For all the processes as the anneal time increases the defect dens ity decreases. The surface terminated defects increase as the anneal time increases. This is because the smaller defect s disappear in favor of the larger ones and during oxidation interstitials that are injected in the silicon participate in the enlargement of the loops.48 Figure 6-13, Figure 6-14 and Figure 6-15 show the surface terminated defects versus the annealing time for the 20 keV implanted piezoresistor, 40 keV implanted piezoresistors without oxi dation and 40 keV implanted piezoresistors with oxidation. 135

PAGE 136

The visualization of the growth of the defects as the annea ling time increases is done by plotting the defects density versus the defect size. The de fect size is measured from the longer axis of a loop. Figure 6-16, Figure 6-17 and Figure 6-18 show th e Ostwald ripening process. 48 As the annealing time increases we observe that the defects are larger in size but their densities decrease. The observed defects with TEM are not the only defect s present in the bulk of the piezoresistors. There still could be point defect s not visible to TEM that can contribute to the measured noise source. Now that the bulk defe cts through XTEM and PTEM have been studied, next the defects located at the Si/SiO2 interface are investigated. 6.3 Interface Trap Density As mentioned earlier in Chapte r 4, the high frequency C-V of the pMOSC is used for the computation of the interface trap density (DIT). Figure 6-19 shows the measured and ideal high frequency C-V of wafer 2E.49 The parallel shift of the measur ed C-V curve with respect to the ideal along the voltage axis indi cates the presence of charged oxide traps known as fixed oxide charges. The presence of interface traps are re vealed by the distortion of the measured C-V curve with respect to the ideal curve and are successfully meas ured using the Termans method. 19 The negative gate voltage shift on Figure 6-19 is due to positive oxide charge.38 The high doping concentration of the test st ructures causes a high voltage for the onset of the inversion capacitance. Going through the e xperiment method described in Ch apter 4, Section 4.3 the oxide thickness and carrier concentrati on are computed. The oxide thicknesses obtained from the C-V at accumulation are listed in Table 54. The energy level versus the DIT are shown in Figure 620, Figure 6-21, Figure 6-22, and Figure 6-23. Values of the order of 1x1012 cm-2 eV-1to 1x1013 cm-2 eV-1 extracted from our test structures indicate poor ox ide quality for all the processes. The DIT for a good quality oxide is in the order of 1x1010 cm-2 eV-1. Now that the defect densities are 136

PAGE 137

computed, an attempt to correlate the measured 1 /f noise voltage PSD to th e bulk defect densities measured with PTEM and interface trap densities obtained with Termans method19 is made. 6.4 Correlation of Noise Voltage PSD to Defects Since defects are the source of low frequency noise, the 1 /f noise magnitude is monitored as a function of the bulk defect and interface trap densities. The bulk defects densities were measured using PTEM and high frequency C-V were used for the computation of interface trap densities. 6.4.1 Noise Voltage PSD of 20 keV Boron Implanted Piezoresistors and Defects In the analysis, it is assumed that all the bulk defects in the piezoresistors consist of dislocation loops and that all de fects are potential traps. For annealing times of 20 min, 30 min and to 50 min the bulk defect densities d ecrease as shown in Figure 6-8 from 6.82x108 cm-2 to 5.89x108 cm-2 and to 5.16x108 cm-2 respectively. The measured noise voltage PSD, Figure 5-18, decreases as the defect density decreases with increasing annealing time. There is a correlation between the bulk defect de nsities and the measured noise voltage PSDs. The uncertainties in the defect densities ove rlap. A Monte Carlo simulation, with 100,000 iterations using the MATLAB function randn is used to fit a line and estimate the uncertainty in the variables.46 Figure 6-9 shows the Monte Carlo simulation of the PTEM defect density for process 2A, process 2E, and proce ss 1A. Figure 6-9 is plotted in the linear scale. A linear regression was performed on the data in Figure 6-9. The linear regression indicates a negative slope. Table 6-1 shows the slope of the regressi on line and the 95 % confidence intervals for the 20 keV implant. 137

PAGE 138

Figure 6-9 indicates a decrease of the defect density with annealing time increase although the uncertainty is large. Further measurements over a wider annealing time is recommended as future work to obtain more conclusive data. Using the Termans method,19 the interface trap densities (DIT) are computed as shown in Figure 6-20. The DIT of process 2E and 1A ar e shown in Figure 6-20. Both wafers have large DIT. At midgap the DIT are in the order of 1x1013 and 1 x1012 eV-1cm-2 respectively for process 2E and 1A. Here, the process with the lower DIT has the lower noise PSD as shown in Figure 518. A correlation exits between the DIT and the 1 /f noise. The non-uniform doping profiles show surface concentrations 1.80x1019 and 1.78x1019 cm-3 of process 2E and 1A are respectively. The peak concentration is not at th e surface and piezoresistors are not field devices, therefore the carriers will be affected by bulk defects located at the peak concentrations. 6.4.2 Noise Voltage PSD of 40 keV Boron Impl anted Piezoresistors through 0.1 m of SiO2 and Defects The bulk defects in the piezoresistor s implanted with boron, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, through 0.1 m of SiO2 are of the same type as those for the wafers implanted with boron, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt. As the annealing increases, the defect density decreases as shown in Figure 6-10 and Figure 6-11. Monte Carlo simulations, with 100,000 iterati ons using the MATLAB function randn are used to fit lines and estimate the uncer tainties in the variab les in Figure 6-10 and Figure 6-11.46 The linear regressions indicate negative slopes. Table 6-1 shows the slopes of the regression lines and the 95 % confidence intervals for the 40 keV implants. However, the noise voltage PSD decreases as the defect density decr eases for only the two processes with only inert anneal process 2B and process 5A, as shown in Figure 5-21 and Figure 6-10. In this case, there is a correlation between the measured defect densities and 1 /f noise. For 138

PAGE 139

the processes with oxidation, pr ocess 3E and process 4A, the noi se voltage PSDs do not decrease as the bulk defect density decreases as shown in Figure 5-22 and Figure 6-11. To explain this trend, we measure the line le ngth, the loop area, and the area of the faulted loops for process 3E (10 min in N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet a nd 10 min dry oxidation at 900 C) and process 4A (30 min in N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxidation at 900 C). The measurements are conducted on only the readily observed loops. Figur e 6-12 shows PTEM of process 3E and process 4A. The line length is the total perimete r of the loops in three PTEM images. For the round loops, the perimeter is approximated by using D for the non-surface terminated round defects, 2 D for the surface terminated round defects, and for the elongated defects. is the longest axis for a round loops, and is the length of the elongated defects. The loop area is the to tal area of the loops in three P TEM images. For the round loops, the area is approximated by using 2 lDl 22D for the non-surface terminated round defects and 22 D 2 for the surface terminated round def ects. The elongated defects are not included in the loop area computation. The faulted loop area is the to tal area of the loops in three PTEM images for only the faulted non-surface terminated and surface terminated round defects. The equations used for the faulted loop areas are identical to those of the loop areas discu ssed above. Table 6-2 shows the computed line lengths, loop areas, and faulted lo op areas of the B 20 keV and 40 keV with inert anneal and oxidization. In Tabl e 6-2, as the annealing time in creases from 30 min to 50 min at 900 C, the line lengths decrease for both the B 20 keV and B 40 keV. However, the loop areas and the faulted loop areas increase The PTEM show that the 1 /f noise PSDs track the bulk defect densities except for process 3E and 4A. In these samples implanted with B 40 keV with 139

PAGE 140

inert anneal and oxidation, th e PSDs appear to track the fa ulted loop areas. Extensive measurements over a wider range of process conditions are recommended for future work. Termans method19 was used to measure the interface trap densities (DIT) in the piezoresistors. The interface trap densities for the 40 keV implants are shown in Figure 6-21 and Figure 6-22. The processes with only inert anneal after the implant, 2B and 5A, have DIT of the same order as shown in Figure 6-21. In additi on, their junction are abou t the same, Table 5-2, therefore these two processes are equally affected by the interface tr aps. However, for processes 3E and 4A, with inert anneal and oxidation after the implant the interface tr ap densities are lower for the process with long er annealing as shown in Figure 6-22. The 1 /f noise is however larger for the device with lower DIT and lower bulk defects. The results from processes 3E and 4A suggest that bulk 1 /f noise is the dominant source for the 1 /f noise in these piezoresistors and that the PSDs appear to track the faulted loop areas. 6.4.3 Noise Voltage PSD of Solid Source Di ffused Piezoresistors and Interface Traps The interface trap densities for the solid sour ce diffused piezoresistors C1 and C2 are of same magnitude as shown in Figure 6-23. Howe ver the noise voltage PSD of C2 is much less than that of C1. This could be due to the fact the phosphorus diffused after the boron diffusion for process C2 reduces the intera ction of the holes with the inte rface traps. Therefore, the less the interaction of the car riers with the interface traps th e less is the 1 /f noise. 6.5 Summary XTEM, PTEM pictures and the HFCV C-V m easurements were used to visualize and compute the bulk and surface defect densities in the piezoresistors. Measurement results show that as the annealing time increases, the bulk defect density decrea ses for all implanted samples. This reduction in bulk defect dens ities is correlated to the decrease of the noise voltage PSDs of the 20 keV implanted piezoresistors and of the 40 keV implanted piezoresistors with only inert 140

PAGE 141

anneal. However, a possible li nk between the defects and the noise voltage PSDs for the 40 keV implanted piezoresistors with inert anneal and oxidation is the faulted loop areas. For the solid source diffused piezoresistors, the process with phosphorous solid source diffusion in addition to the boron so lid source diffusion has lower 1 /f noise. This suggests that the phosphorous cause a reduction of the interac tion of the hole with th e surface traps. The interface traps decrease for th e 20 keV implanted piezoresistors and the 40 keV implanted piezoresistors with inert anneal and oxidation as the annealing time increases. However, the DIT is of the same magnitude for the 40 keV implan ted piezoresistors with only inert and the solid source diffused piezoresistors. The bulk defects are the dominant noise source of the piezoresistors. During devices operation the current flows in the bulk which has high defect concentrations. 141

PAGE 142

Table 6-1. Slopes of re gression lines and the 95 % confidence intervals. Process Slope 95 % confid ence interval in slope 20 keV -8.80x104 [-3.24x105 1.48x105] 40 keV with inert only -8.07x104 [-2.26x105 0.65x105] 40 keV with inert and oxidation -1.23x105 [-4.43x105 1.96x105] Table 6-2. Line length, loop area, and faulted loop area of th e B 20 keV and 40 keV with inert anneal and oxidation. Implant and annealing Line length (cm/cm2) Loop area (cm2/cm2) Faulted loop area (cm2/cm2) B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (2E) 1.73x104 3.39x10-2 1.83x10-2 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (1A) 1.63x104 4.09x10-2 2.13x10-2 B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2through 0.1 m of SiO2 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (3E) 1.94x104 4.39x10-2 2.52x10-2 30 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C (4A) 1.93x104 6.64x10-2 4.70x10-2 Figure 6-1. Focus ion beam (FIB) on a piezoresistor test structure. 142

PAGE 143

Figure 6-2. The XTEM of piezoresi stor implanted with B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 of generation 2 process, A) 2A, B) 2E, C) 1A. Figure 6-3. XTEM of piezo resistor generation 2 implanted with B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO2 of generation 2 process, A) 2B, B) 3E, C) 4A), D) 5A. 143

PAGE 144

Figure 6-4. The XTEM of piezoresistor A) solid sour ce diffusions of B, 25 min, 950 C, B) solid source diffusions of B, 25 min, 950 C and P, 5 min, 800 C of generation 2 process. Figure 6-5. Ten PTEM pi ctures for process 2A of generatio n 2 process, implanted with B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 and annealed for 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry at 900 C. 144

PAGE 145

Figure 6-6. PTEM of the 20 keV implanted test structur es A) 2A, B) 2E, C) 1A. Figure 6-7. PTEM of the 40 ke V implanted test structures A) 2B, B) 3E, C) 4A, D) 5A. 145

PAGE 146

103 10 4 108 109 Annealing time (sec)Defect density (cm-2) B, 20keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 70 tilt2a (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 2e (10 min in N2 followed by 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 1a (30 min in N2 followed by 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 2e 1a 2a Figure 6-8. Defects densities as a function of anneal time of the 20 keV implanted t est structures of generation 2 process. 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 x 108 Anneal time ( sec ) Defect density (cm-2) Fitted line Figure 6-9. Regression line of the defect density versus annealing time for the B 20 keV. 146

PAGE 147

102 103 104 108 109 1010 Annealing time (sec)Defect density (cm-2) B, 40keV, 7x1014 cm-2 throught 0.1 m of SiO22b (10 min in N2 at 900 C) 5a (90 min in N2 at 900 C) 2b 5a Figure 6-10. Defects densities as a function of anneal time of the 40 keV implanted test structures with only inert anneal of generation 2 process. 103 104 108 109 Annealing time (sec)Defect density (cm-2) B, 40keV, 7x1014 cm-2 throught 0.1 m of SiO23e (10 min in N2 followed by 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 4a (30 min in N2 followed by 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 3e 4a Figure 6-11. Defects densities as a function of anneal time of the 40 keV implanted test structures with inert anneal and oxidation of generation 2 process. 147

PAGE 148

Figure 6-12. PTEM of processes 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2, through 0.1 m of SiO2., A) 3E (10 min in N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxidation at 900 C) and B) 4A (30 min in N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet a nd 10 min dry oxidation at 900 C). 103 104 107 108 109 Annealing time (sec)Surface terminated defects (cm-2) B, 20keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 70 tilt2a (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 2e (10 min in N2 followed by 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 1a (30 min in N2 followed by 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 2a 2e 1a Figure 6-13. Surface terminated defects versus the annealing time of the 20 keV implanted test structures of generation 2 process. 148

PAGE 149

102 103 104 107 108 109 Annealing time (sec)Surface terminated defects (cm-2) B, 40keV, 7x1014 cm-2 throught 0.1 m of SiO22b (10 min in N2 at 900 C) 5a (90 min in N2 at 900 C) Figure 6-14. Surface terminated defects versus the annealing time of the 40 keV implanted test structures with only inert anneal of generation 2 process. 103 10 4 107 108 109 Annealing time (sec)Surface terminated defects (cm-2) B, 40keV, 7x1014 cm-2 throught 0.1 m of SiO23e (10 min in N2 followed by 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 4a (30 min in N2 followed by 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 3e 4a Figure 6-15. Surface terminated defects versus the annealing time of the 40 keV implanted test structures with inert anneal and oxidation of generation 2 process. 149

PAGE 150

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 5 10 15 x 107 B, 20keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 70 tilt2A Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 5 10 15 x 107 Defect density (cm-2) B, 20keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 70 tilt2E Inert (10 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 15 x 1070.7 0 5 B, 20keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 70 tilt10 1A Inert (30 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) Defect size (m)Figure 6-16. Defects count versus loop size of the 20 ke V implanted test stru ctures of generation 2 process. 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 x 108 B, 40keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO22B Inert (10 min at 900 C) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 x 108 Defect size (m)Defect density (cm-2) B, 40keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO25A Inert (90 min at 900 C) Figure 6-17. Defects count vers us loop size of the 40 keV implanted test st ructures with only inert anneal of ge neration 2 process. 150

PAGE 151

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 5 10 15 x 107 B, 40keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO23E Inert (10 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 5 10 15 x 107 Defect size (m)Defect density (cm-2) B, 40keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through 0.1 m of SiO24A Inert (90 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C) Figure 6-18. Defects count versus loop size of the 40 keV implanted test structures with inert anneal and oxidation of generation 2 process. -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 530 535 540 545 550 555 560 VG (volts)Capacitance (pF) Ideal Experimental 2E Figure 6-19. Measured and idea l high frequency C-V of process 2E, implanted with B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 and annealed for 10 min N2 and 5 min dry, 5 min wet and 10 min dry oxide at 900 C, of generation 2 process. 151

PAGE 152

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1012 1013 1014 S B (eV)DIT (eV-1 cm-2) B, 20keV, 7x1014 cm-2, 7o tilt 2E Inert anneal (10 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet, 10 min dry at 900 C) 1A Inert anneal (30 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet, 10 min dry at 900 C) Figure 6-20. Energy level versus the DIT of the 20 keV implanted test structures. of generation 2 process. -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1012 1013 1014 S B (eV)DIT (eV-1 cm-2) B, 40keV, 7x1014 cm-2, through 0.1 m of SiO22B Inert anneal (10 min at 900 C) 5A Inert anneal (90 min at 900 C) Figure 6-21. Energy level versus the DIT of the 40 keV implanted test structures with only inert anneal of generation 2 process. 152

PAGE 153

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1012 1013 1014 S B (eV)DIT (eV-1 cm-2) B, 40keV, 7x1014 cm-2, through 0.1 m of SiO23E Inert anneal (10 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet, 10 min dry at 900 C) 4A Inert anneal (30 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet, 10 min dry at 900 C) Figure 6-22. Energy level versus the DIT of th e 40 keV implanted test structures with inert anneal and oxidation of generation 2 process. -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1012 1013 1014 S B (eV)DIT (eV-1 cm-2)C1 Solid source diffusion 1) B, 25 min at 950 C C2 Solid source diffusions 1) B, 25 min at 950 C and 2) P, 5 min at 800 C C1 and C2 Inert anneal (30 min at 900 C) Oxidation (5 min dry, 5 min wet, 10 min dry at 900 C) Figure 6-23. Energy level versus the DIT of the solid source diffused test structures of generation 2 process. 153

PAGE 154

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK The noise performance of piezoresistive MEMS transducers defi ned as the minimum detectable signal depends on both the sensitivity and output referre d noise. It has been observed that identical sensors fabricated with different fa brication processes exhibit very different noise. Hence, the fabrication process can have a large effect on the intrinsic noise mechanisms, in particular the 1 /f noise which is related to electronically active defects or tr aps. The geometry and process dependence of 1 /f noise in p-type piezoresistors was systematically investigated in this work. P-type piezoresistors were fabric ated with 20 keV and 40keV boron implants, with implant oxide for the 40keV case, and solid-sour ce diffusion and varying isochronal 900C inert anneals on test-structures of different surface area and volume. The devices were characterized electrically using I-V, C-V, and power spectral density noise m easurements. The defects were visualized using cross-section a nd plane view TEM. In addition, the influence of carrier number on piezoresistors 1 /f noise was investigated. In genera l, the results show that lower 1/f noise can be achieved by increased carrier number and longer inert anneal time. For the first time, the measured 1 /f noise in piezoresistors is systematically co mpared to bulk defect densities measured with TEM and interface trap de nsities from HFCV after each annealing condition of the piezoresistors. For p-type piezoresistors impl anted with 20 keV boron at 7x1014 cm-3 dose and isothermally annealed at 900C for varying times in inert N2 followed by a short dry/wet/dry oxidation at the same temperature, increasi ng inert anneals result ed in decreasing 1 /f noise as well as bulk defect densities measured by PTEM. DIT measured by HFCV also indicated decreasing interface trap density for the 20 keV boron samples with increasing inert anneal and constant dry/wet/dry oxidation at 900C. 154

PAGE 155

For the 40 keV implant through 0.1 m oxide, th e noise in samples th at underwent only increased inert anneal showed a correlation between lower 1 /f noise and lower bulk defect density with longer anneal time. However, 40 keV samples with inert anneal and additional dry/wet/dry oxidation showed increased 1 /f noise with increased 900C inert anneal (10 min versus 30 min) but decreased bulk trap density. In both cases, the interface traps density measured by HFCV decreased slightly or remained unchanged. Upon further inspection, it was found that for the two processes implanted with B 40 keV and s ubjected to inert anneal and oxidation, the PSDs appear to track the faulted loop areas. Additional measurements over a wider range of process c onditions are recommended. In contrast to the implanted samples, the solid-source diffused p-type resistor exhibited no bulk defects observable by TEM. A phosphorous counter-doped so lid-source diffused p-type piezoresistor had less noise than the boron-only solid-source diffused piezoresistor which is attributed to the boron centroid further from the Si/SiO2 interface. In bulk piezores istors, the 1 /f noise appears to be more strongly affected by the bulk defect density than the surface trap densit y which is expected since current density profile is distributed and centered at the region of hi ghest conductivity. When the bulk defect density is low, then surface trap effects on the 1 /f noise become significant. From the noise performance of the implanted and diffused piezoresistor s, the reduction of the 1 /f noise can be achieved using boron solid source diffusion and counter phosphorous solid source diffusion. When solid source diffusion is used, defects in the silicon caused by ion implantation are avoided. Furthermore, the in teraction of carriers with the interface trap densities is limited by the presence of phosphorous at the surface of the silicon by shifting the hole centroid away from the Si/SiO2 interface. Other important parameters for better noise 155

PAGE 156

performance are good oxide quality and large carri er number. The less the interface traps the less the trapping and detrapping of carriers at the in terface. The larger the nu mber of carriers, the lower the 1 /f noise as illustrated by th e Hooge formulation of the low frequency noise which shows an inverse proportionality between the low frequency noise and the number of carriers. The distribution of the trap en ergy levels and their capture cr oss sections and the defect concentrations in the piezoresistors using d eep level transient spectroscopy and isothermal transient capacitance C(t,T) 50, 51, 52 are worth investigating. In addition to boron implant, the correlation of 1 /f noise to defects can be studied in preamorphized a nd low energy ion implanted piezoresistors with BF2 followed by rapid thermal annealing. This study would help analyze and correlate the 1 /f noise to defects in piezoresistors with shallower junctions a nd higher electrical active carrier concentrations. 156

PAGE 157

APPENDIX A PIEZORESISTIVITY Crystalline silicon has three fundamental piezoresistive coefficients (11, 12, and 44). The piezoresistance coefficient matrix of silicon is shown in Equation A-1.53 11 111212 22 121112 33 121211 41 44 52 44 63 44000 000 000 1 00000 00000 00000 ) (A-1) where 1=xx, 2=yy, and 3=zz are the normal stresses, and 1=yz, 2=xz, and 3=xy are the shear stresses. Smith53 provided the piezoresis tance coefficients for n-type and p-type silicon at a specific given resistivity are shown in Table A-1. The piezoresistance coefficient magnitude changes with orientation. Kanda54 has provided a way to co mpute the piezoresistance coefficient for different orientations. When the a pplied stress is perpendicular or parallel to the electric field, the piezoresistance coefficient is decomposed respectively into a transverse piezoresistive, t, and a longitudinal piezoresistive coefficient, l as illustrated in Equation A-2 in terms of the piezoresistance coefficients 11, 12, 44, and the direction cosines (l,m)54 (A-2) 222222 12441211121212 222222 11441211111111() ( 2( )( )l tllmmnn lmlnmn Using the piezoresistive coeffi cients values of silicon (11, 12, and 44) of Table A-1, one obtains the polar plots of the l ongitudinal A) and transverse B) piezoresistance coefficients for ptype (100) silicon as shown in Figure A-1. 157

PAGE 158

In Figure A-1, the piezoresistance coefficients are larger in the <110> direc tion. In addition, we notice that the transverse piezo resistance coefficients are appr oximately equal but have opposite sign compared to the longitudinal piezoresistance co efficient. To take advantage of the equality in magnitude and difference in sign, in the desi gn of piezoresistive micr ophone, researchers such as Saini55 orient the piezoresistors in such directions in a Wheatstone bridge configuration. Table A-2 provides the transverse and longitudinal piezoresistan ce coefficients of silicon along the <110> direction on a (100) wafer for room te mperature and lowly doped silicon. In Table A2 above, for <110> p-type silicon, the l is has opposite sign but has almost the same magnitude as t. However, his is not the case for the n-type silicon where l and t have not only the same sign but also they differ in magnitudes. Th e piezoresistance coefficients are inversely proportional to the doping concentration. Equation A-1 shows that as the doping concentration increases, the resistivity decrea ses, thus a decrease in the resi stance. The dependence of the piezoresistive coefficients on doping concentration and temperature using Fermi-Dirac statistics have been studied by Kanda.54 However, at high doping con centration, Kandas theoretical prediction of the piezoresistance coefficients is di fferent from more recent studies by Harley and Kenny.12 By fitting data from Manson et al.,56 Tufte and Stetzer,57 and Kerr and Milnes,58 Harley and Kenny12 show that at high doping concentrati on one can approximate the decrease of the piezoresistance coefficient by a straight line. 158

PAGE 159

Table A-1. Piezoresistive coefficients of silicon. Silicon ( -cm) 11 (10-11 Pa-1) 12 (10-11 Pa-1) 44 (10-11 Pa-1) p-type 7.8 6.6 -1.1 138.1 n-type 11.7 -102.2 53.4 -13.6 Figure A-1. Polar plots of longitudinal A) and transverse B) pi ezoresistance coefficients for ptype (100) silicon. Table A-2. Transverse and l ongitudinal piezoresistance coeffi cients of silicon for <110> direction Silicon l (10-11 Pa-1) t (10-11 Pa-1) p-type 71.8 -66.3 n-type -31.2 -17.6 159

PAGE 160

APPENDIX B MEMS PIEZORESISTIVE MICRO PHONE VOLTAGE OUTPUT When pressure or force is applied to the microphones membrane, it induces stress resulting in strain on the membrane. The stress and strain have an impact on the piezoresistors located at the edge of the membrane where the stress is maximum. Strain is the change per unit length of the piezoresistors and is ex pressed as shown in Equation B-1. L L (B-1) where L is the change in the original length and L is the original length of the resistor. The expression of the strain sensitiv ity, also known as gauge factor G0, is shown in Equation B-2. 0 0 R R G (B-2) where R is the chance of resistance R and is the strain. The resistance of a semiconductor resi stor is given in Equation B-3. l R wt (B-3) where is the resistivity, and l w and t are respectively the length width and thickness of the resistor. The expression R R is obtained by differentiating Equation B-3 and dividing the resulting expression by the resistance R as illustrated in Equation B-4. R lw t R lwt (B-4) Using the Poissons ratio, the strain sensitivity G becomes 160

PAGE 161

12R R G (B-5) In Equation B-5, 12 is due to the geometry change and is due to the piezoresistive effect. For metal, the piezoresist ive effect is negligible and th erefore the gauge factor can be expressed in term of its geometrical change only as shown in Equation B-6. 12 R R G (B-6) Since is less than 0.5, G for metal is about two. For semiconductor, the gauge factor, G, is dominated by the piezoresistive effect and can have a magnitude in the range of 100. The expression of sensor output voltage outV given in Equation B-7 describes a linear relation between the input pressure on the membrane of the microphone and the output voltage of the Wheatstone bridge configuration. 0out biasVGV (B-7) Using Equation B-6, we express the bridge output voltage Vout in terms of the change in resistance R the resistance R and the bias voltage Vbias. out biasR VV R (B-8) Hence with application of an external bias the piezoresist ive microphone provides a linear output voltage related with resistance change. If a mechanical tran sfer function relating R to pressure is linear, then a linear acoustic transducer is achieved. 161

PAGE 162

APPENDIX C DIFFRENCE BETWEEN HOOGE AND MCWHORTER 1/F NOISE MODEL The difference between 1/f noise proposed by Hooge6 and McWhorter7 is illustrated via the resistance fluctuations in a p-type resistor. Hooge6 gives a spectral po wer density of the fluctuation in the resistance R as shown in Equation C-1, 2RS R Nf (C-1) where is the noise power spectral density, is a dimensionless parameter, f is the frequency, and N is the number of carriers. RSIn a linear system, Ohms Law,* VRI holds and one can extend Equation C-1 to Equation C-2 shown below 222V RIS SS R VINf (C-2) In a p-type resistor (p>>n) with length l, width w and thickness t, the resistance R is l R wt (C-3) Here the resistivity of a p-type resistor is expressed as 111ppqp where is the conductivity, q is the charge of the carrier, p is the hole mobility, and is the hole concentration. Thus, Equation C-3 can be expressed in terms of mobility and hole concentration as shown in Equation C-4. p pl R qwtp (C-4) 162

PAGE 163

Fluctuations in R is expressed in Equation C-5. 22 p p p pp p pRR Rp p ll p qwtpqwtp RR p p and p p R p R p (C-5) where p is the fluctuation in mobility and p is the fluctuation in the carrier concentration. It is seen that fluctuations in R may be caused by fluctuations in p, p or both under bias conditions. The fluctuations in mobility can be explained as follows. The time interval between two successive hole collisions is called the relaxation time or mean free transit time and is denoted by This relaxation time is determined by la ttice and impurity scattering. The mobility p is related to the relaxation time as described in Equation C-6. p pq m (C-6) where mp is the hole effective mass, q is the charge of the carrier, and < >is the average relaxation time. Therefore, fluctuations in < > induce fluctuations in p as shown in Equation C-7. p pq m (C-7) 163

PAGE 164

Under applied voltage bias, carriers drift in the resulting electric field giving rise to a current I. This current is related to the mobility as shown in Equation C-8 for a p-type semiconductor resistor. driftpp I qpA (C-8) where is the electric field, and A is the cross-sectional area of the resistor. Thus, from Equation C-8, one sees that fluctuations in the current driftp I are induced by fluctuations in the mobilityp which is in turn related to fluctuations in the relaxation time as shown in Equation C-7. These time dependent fluctuations give rise to 1/f noise. 164

PAGE 165

APPENDIX D PROCESS FLOW D.1 Generation 1 Process 1. Start with bulk wafer (n-Si, 4 in, CZ <100>, 2-5 -cm, 500-550 m), single side polished, NB =1x1015cm-3. RCA clean. 2. Grow thick isolation mask SiO2. 3. Lithography for implant mask. n-Si SiO2 Resist 4. Etch oxide 5. Photo resist strip 165

PAGE 166

6. Ion implantation Table D-1. Implant conditi on of process generation 1. Species B Isotope 11 Dose (ions/cm-2) 6x1014 Energy (keV) 5 Tilt angle (degree) 7 Substrate temperature (C) 25 7. RCA wafer clean 8. Inert anneal and oxidation a. Inert Anneal in N2 (300 min, 1050 C) b. Grow of thermal SiO2 (dry 65 min, wet 21 min, dry 65 min at 950 C) 9. Lithography for contact hole 10. Etch oxide 166

PAGE 167

11. Photo resist strip 12. Front side metallization on top wafer-polished surface 13. Lithography for metal bond pad 14. Metal etch and photo resist strip 15. Back side metallization on bo ttom of wafer-unpolished surface. 16. Photoresist strip 17. Nitride passivati on deposition (PECVD) and patterning 18. Post metallization anneal (forming gas 96% N2, 4% H2) 167

PAGE 168

19. Wafer dicing 20. Packaging 168

PAGE 169

D.2 Generation 2 Process 1. RCA of wafers (n-Si, 4 in, CZ <100>, 0.5-1 -cm, 525 25 m) single side polished. (UF) 2. Grow thick isolation mask dry/wet/dry SiO2 (70/23/70 min at 1100 C) and spin resist. (UF) 3. Lithography for a) channel implant or b) channel solid-sou rce predep (UF) N-type Si SiO2 Resist 4. Etch dry/wet/dry oxide where channel a) impl ant or b) solid-source predep is to be performed. (UF) N-type Si SiO2 Resist 169

PAGE 170

5. Photoresist strip. (UF) N-type Si SiO2 6. RCA clean (UF) 7. Growth thin dry/wet/dry SiO2 and lithography for channel implant with mask 2 (dark field). N-type Si SiO2 Implant oxide 8. Ion implantation a) B 20keV, etch the dry oxide and leav e the resist which serves as mask during the implant. 170

PAGE 171

b) B 40keV, leave the resist which serv es as mask during the implant. c) B or P solid source diffusion 9. Photoresist strip and RCA wa fer organic clean (SC-1) 10. Inert anneal in N2 and dry/wet/dry SiO2 of wafers a) B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 directly into the silicon Table D.2.1 B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 7 tilt implanted directly into silicon. Process Implant Anneal in N2 Dry/wet/dry Oxide 120keVDt B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 7 tilt NA 5/5/10 min at 900 C 220keVDt B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 7 tilt 10 min, 900 C 5/5/10 min at 900 C 320keVDt B, 20 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 7 tilt 30 min, 900 C 5/5/10 min at 900 C 171

PAGE 172

b) B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 through SiO2 Table D.2.2 B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 implanted through oxide. Process Implant Anneal in N2 Dry/wet/dry Oxide 140keVDt B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 10 min, 900 C NA 240keVDt B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 10 min, 900 C 5/5/10 min at 900 C 340keVDt B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 30 min, 900 C 5/5/10 min at 900 C 440keVDt B, 40 keV, 7x1014 cm-2 90 min, 900 C 5/5/10 min at 900 C c) Solid source diffusion annealing Table D.2.3 Inert anneal in N2 and dry/wet/dry SiO2 of wafers for constant source diffusion. Process name Anneal in N2 Dry/wet/dry oxide (0.0205 m) C1 and C2 30 min, 900 C 5/5/10 min at 900 C 11. Lithography for contact holes with mask 3 (dark field). This appl ies to wafers with and without thin oxide implant masks. N-type Si SiO2 Implant oxide Boron 12. Etch oxide for contact holes N-type Si SiO2 Implant oxide Boron 172

PAGE 173

13. Photoresist strip and front side metallization on top wafe r-polished surface N-type Si SiO2 Implant oxide Boron Metal 14. Lithography for metal with mask 4 (clear field), metal etch and photo resist strip 15. Nitride passivation depo sition (PECVD) on top of wafer-polished surface 16. Lithography for contact pads with mask 5 (dark field), nitride etch and back side metallization on bottom of wafer-unpolished surface 173

PAGE 174

17. Post metallization anneal (forming gas 96% N2, 4% H2) 18. Wafer dicing 19. Packaging Metal N-type Si SiO2 Implant oxide Boron Metal Nitride 174

PAGE 175

LIST OF REFERENCES 1D. Deal, J. D. Plummer, and P. B. Griffin, Silicon VLSI Technology Fundamentals, Practice and Modeling (Prentice Hall, NJ, 2000). 2J. S. Bendat and A.G. Piersol, Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures (John Wiley & Sons, New-York, 1971). 3H. Nyquist, Thermal agitation of electric charge in conductors, Phys. Rev. 32, 110-113 (1928). 4J. B. Johnson, Thermal agitation of electricity in conductors, Phys. Rev. 32, 97-109 (1928). 5T. B. Gabrielson, Mechanical-thermal noise in micromachined acoustic and vibration sensors, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 40(5), 903-909 (1993). 6F. N. Hooge, /f noise is no surface effect, Phys. Lett. A 29(3), 139-140 (1969). 7A. McWhorter, /f Noise and germanium surface properties, Semiconductor Surface Physics (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1957), pp. 207-228. 8F. N. Hooge, /f noise, Physica B 83, 14-23 (1976). 9F. N. Hooge, Lattice scattering causes 1/f noise, Phys. Lett. A 66, 315-316 (1978). 10F. N. Hooge and L.K.J. Vandamme, On the origin of 1/f noise, Fourteenth International Conference on the Phys ics of Semiconductors, Edinburgh, UK, 4-8 September 1978, Inst. Phys. Conference Ser. 43, 565-568 (1979). 11E. Simoen and C. Claeys, On the flic ker noise in submicron silicon MOSFETs, SolidState Electron. 43, 865-882 (1998). 12J. A. Harley and T. W. Kenny, /F noise considerations for the design and process optimization of piezoresistive cantilevers, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 9(2), 226-235 (2000). 13X. Yu, J. Thaysen, O. Hansen, and A. Boisen, Optimization of sensitivity and noise in piezoresistive cantilevers, J. Appl. Phys. 92(10), 6296-6301 (2002). 14Z. Celik and T. Y. Hsiang, Study of 1/f noise in n-MOSFET's: linear region, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-32(12), 2797-2802 (1985). 175

PAGE 176

15W. Schottky, ber spontane stromschwankungen in verschiedenen El ektrizittsleiter, Annalen der Physik 57, 541-567 (1918). 16K. S. Jones, S. Prussin, and E.R. Weber, A systematic analysis of defects in ion implanted silicon, Appl. Phys. A 45,1-34 (1988). 17H.-S. Fu and C.-T. Sah, Theory and expe riments on surface 1/f noise, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-19, 273-285 (1972). 18F.-C. Hou, G. Bosman, and M. E. Law, Simulation of oxide trapping noise in submicron n-channel MOSFETs, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 50(3), 846-852 (2003). 19L. M. Terman, An investigation of surface st ates at a silicon/silicon oxide interface employing metal-ox ide-silicon diodes, Solid-State Electron. 5(5), p. 285-299 (1962). 20H. R. Bilger, J. L. Tandon, and M.-A. Nico let, Excess noise measurements in ionimplanted silicon resistors, Solid-State Electron. 17, 599-605 (1974). 21L. K. J. Vandamme and S. Oosterhoff, Ann ealing of ion-implanted resistors reduces the 1/f noise, J. Appl. Phys. 59(9), 3169-3174 (1986). 22R. H. M. Clevers, Volume and temperature dependence of the 1/f noise parameter Physica B 154, 214-224 (1989). 23J. A. Harley, T.W. Kenny, High-Sensit ivity Piezoresistive Ca ntaliver under 1000 A Thick, Appl. Phys. Lett. 75(2), 289-291 (1999). 24X. Yu, T. Li, and D. Zang, Noise-Analy zing of Piezoresistive Silicon Materials, Seventh International Conference on Solid-S tate and Integrated Circuits Technology 3, 2194-2197 (2004). 25A. A. Davenport, P. Lim, and B. Pruitt, N oise studies in implanted piezoresistors, Proceedings of IMEC 2005, ASME interna tional mechanical engineering congress and exposition 2005, Orlando, FL. 26J. R. Mallon Jr., A.J. Rasteger, A.A. Barlian, M.T. Meyer, T. H. Fung, and B. L. Pruit, Low 1/f noise, full bridge, microcantilever with longitudinal and transverse piezoresistors, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 033508 033508-3 (2008). 27E. Cocheteau, B. Belier, L. Bary, and R. Plana, Formation of ultra-shallow p+/n junctions using BF2 implantation for the fabrica tion of improved piezoresistive cantilevers, Eleventh International Conference on Solid-State Sensors and Actuators 2001, Munich, Germany. 176

PAGE 177

28B. Belier, C. Bergaud, E. Cocheteau, L. Bary, and R. Plana, Formation of implanted piezoresistors under 100-nm thick for nanoelectromechanical systems, Fifteen IEEE International Conference on Micro Electro M echanical Systems, Las Vegas, NV 2002, pp. 360-363. 29J.-H. Li and K.S. Jones, {311} Defects in silicon: the source of the loops, Appl. Phys. Lett. 73(25), 3748-3750 (1998). 30J. Liu, K.S. Jones, D. F. Downey, S. Mehta, Onset of extended defect formation and enhanced diffusion for ultra-low energy boron implants, Material Research Society Symposium Proceedings 568, San Francisco, CA, 9-14 (1999). 31D. Girginoudi and C. Tsiarapas, Compara tive study on EOR and deep level defects in preamorphised Si implanted with B+, BF2 + and F+B+, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 266(16), 3565-3576 (2008). 32N. Yarykin and E. Steinman, Comparative study of the plastic deformationand implantation-induced centers in silicon, Physica B 340-342, 756-759 (2003). 33F. Boussaid, F. Olivie, D. Alquier, and A. Martinez, Electrically active defects in BF2 + implanted and germanium preamorphized silicon, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 134, 195-201 (1998). 34M. Benzohra, F. Olivie, F. Boussaid, D. Al quier, and A. Martinez, Electronic defect levels in ultra-shallow p+n-junctions formed by low-energy B ion implantation into Gepreamorphized silicon, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 36, 4346-4350 (1997). 35J. Kaniewski, M. Kaniewska, and A.R. Peak er, Deep levels associated with oxidation induced stacking faults in n-type silicon, Appl. Phys. Lett. 60(3), 359-361 (1992). 36L. Michelutti, N. Mathieu, A. Chovet, and A. Galerie, Influence of chemical corrosion on resistivity and 1/f noise of polysilicon gauges, Microelectron. Reliab. 40, 179-183 (2000). 37J. Park and H. Hwang, Comparison of u ltra-low-energy ion impl antation of boron and BF2, Material Research Society Symposium Proceedings 568, San Francisco, CA, 7175 (1999). 38C. -T. Sah, Fundamentals of Solid-State Electronics (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991). 39S. W. Crowder, Processing physics in silic on-on-insulator material Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, 1995. 177

PAGE 178

40R. B. Fair and J. C. C. Tsai, Theory a nd direct measurement of boron segregation in SiO2 during dry, near dry, and wet O2 oxidation, J. Electrochem. Soc. 125, 2050-2058 (1978). 41R. C. Jaeger, Introduction to Microelect ronic Fabrication, Second Edition (Prentice Hall, NJ, 2002). 42M. E. Law, FLOOPS and FLOOPS http://www.swamp.tec.ufl.edu/~flooxs/ [cited; Available from: http://www.swamp.tec.ufl.edu/~flooxs/ ] (2009). 43W. van Gelder and E.H. Nicollian, Silicon impurity distribution as revealed by pulsed MOS C-V measurements, J. Electrochem. Soc. 118, 138-141 (1971). 44D. K. Schroder, Semiconductor Material and Device Characterization (WileyInterscience, New York, 2006). 45G. P. Carver, J. J. Kopanski, D. B. Novotny, and R. A. Forman, Specific contact resistivity of metal-semi conductor contacts-A new, accu rate method linked to spreading resistance, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 35(4), 489-497 (1988). 46H. W. Coleman and W. G. Steele, Experi mentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1999). 47H. Murrmann and D. Widmann, Current crowding on metal contacts to planer devices, Solid-State Circuits Conference, Di gest of Technical Papers, 1969 IEEE Internationa XII 1969, pp. 162-163. 48W. Ostwald, Lehrbuch der Allgemeinen Chemie, Vol. 2, part 1, Leipzig, Germany (1896). 49R. F. Pierret, Semiconductor Device Fundame ntals (Addison Wesley Longman, USA, 1996). 50D. V. Lang, Deep-level transient spectrosc opy: A new method to characterize traps in Semiconductors, J. Appl. Phys. 45, 3023-3032 (1974). 51C. -T. Sah, L. Forbes, L. L. Rosier, A. F. Tasch Jr., Thermal and optical emission and capture rates and cross sections of el ectrons and holes at imperfection centers in semiconductors from photo and dark j unction current and cap acitance experiments Solid-State Electron. 13, 759-788 (1970). 52C. -T. Sah, Bulk and interface imperfec tions in semiconductors, Solid-State Electron. 19, 975-990 (1976). 178

PAGE 179

53C. S. Smith, Piezoresistance effects in germanium and silicon, Phys. Rev. 94, 42-49 (1954). 54Y. Kanda, Piezoresistance effect in silicon, Sens. Actuators, A 28, 83-91 (1991). 55R. Saini, Design of a MEMS Based Pi ezoresistive Microphone, M.S. thesis, Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics, and E ngineering Science, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, 2001. 56W. P. Mason, J. J. Forst, and L. M. To rnillo, Recent developments in semiconductor strain transducers, Fifteenth Annual Conference Proceedings of the Instrumentation Society of America 1962, pp. 110-120. 57E. L. Stelzer and O. N. Tufte, Piezoresis tive properties of silic on diffused layers, J. Appl. Phys. 34(2), 313-318 (1963). 58A. G. Milnes and D. R. Kerr, Piezore sistance of diffuse d layers in cubic semiconductors, J. Appl. Phys. 34(4), 727-731 (1963). 59R. Doering and Y.Nishi, Handbook of Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008) 179

PAGE 180

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Robert Dim was born in Senegal. After fi nishing high school in 1995, he received the Associate of Arts certificate from Tallahasse e Community College in December 1998. He graduated with a bachelors degr ee in electrical engineering from the University of Florida in December 2001 and received a Master of Science in electrical engineering fr om the University of Florida in spring 2005 under the guidance of Dr. Toshikazu Nishida. He began pursuing a doctorate concentrating in the i nvestigation of noise in piezore sistors, in the summer 2005. 180