4.6 Article

Epitaxial Growth of Si and SiGe Using High-Order Silanes without a Carrier Gas at Low Temperatures via UHVCVD and LPCVD

Journal

COATINGS
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/coatings11050568

Keywords

Si epitaxy; SiGe epitaxy; high-order silane; ultra-high vacuum chemical vapor deposition (UHVCVD); low-pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD)

Funding

  1. Technology Innovation Program - Ministry of Trade, Industry Energy (MOTIE) [20010598]
  2. Future Semiconductor Device Technology Development Program - MOTIE [20004274]
  3. Korea Semiconductor Research Consortium (KSRC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High-order silanes show better epitaxial growth results at low temperatures, while traditional silane and disilane have lower growth rates at low temperatures.
Conventional Si or SiGe epitaxy via chemical vapor deposition is performed at high temperatures with a large amount of hydrogen gas using silane (SiH4) or dichlorosilane (SiCl2H2) precursors. These conventional precursors show low growth rates at low temperatures, particularly below 500 degrees C although a low thermal budget becomes more important for modern fabrication techniques. High-order silane precursors, such as disilane, trisilane, and tetrasilane, are candidates for low-temperature epitaxy due to the lower strength of the Si-Si bonds compared to that of the Si-H bonds. In addition, the consumption of vast amounts of hydrogen gas is an additional burden of the low-temperature process due to its low throughput. In this study, we explored Si and SiGe epitaxial growth behaviors using several high-order silanes under ultra-high vacuum chemical vapor deposition (UHVCVD) and low-pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) conditions without a carrier gas. Disilane showed high-quality epi-growth under both pressure conditions, whereas trisilane and tetrasilane showed enhanced growth rates and lower quality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available