Publications
Imaging doped silicon test structures using low energy electron microscopy
This document is the final SAND Report for the LDRD Project 105877 - 'Novel Diagnostic for Advanced Measurements of Semiconductor Devices Exposed to Adverse Environments' - funded through the Nanoscience to Microsystems investment area. Along with the continuous decrease in the feature size of semiconductor device structures comes a growing need for inspection tools with high spatial resolution and high sample throughput. Ideally, such tools should be able to characterize both the surface morphology and local conductivity associated with the structures. The imaging capabilities and wide availability of scanning electron microscopes (SEMs) make them an obvious choice for imaging device structures. Dopant contrast from pn junctions using secondary electrons in the SEM was first reported in 1967 and more recently starting in the mid-1990s. However, the serial acquisition process associated with scanning techniques places limits on the sample throughput. Significantly improved throughput is possible with the use of a parallel imaging scheme such as that found in photoelectron emission microscopy (PEEM) and low energy electron microscopy (LEEM). The application of PEEM and LEEM to device structures relies on contrast mechanisms that distinguish differences in dopant type and concentration. Interestingly, one of the first applications of PEEM was a study of the doping of semiconductors, which showed that the PEEM contrast was very sensitive to the doping level and that dopant concentrations as low as 10{sup 16} cm{sup -3} could be detected. More recent PEEM investigations of Schottky contacts were reported in the late 1990s by Giesen et al., followed by a series of papers in the early 2000s addressing doping contrast in PEEM by Ballarotto and co-workers and Frank and co-workers. In contrast to PEEM, comparatively little has been done to identify contrast mechanisms and assess the capabilities of LEEM for imaging semiconductor device strictures. The one exception is the work of Mankos et al., who evaluated the impact of high-throughput requirements on the LEEM designs and demonstrated new applications of imaging modes with a tilted electron beam. To assess its potential as a semiconductor device imaging tool and to identify contrast mechanisms, we used LEEM to investigate doped Si test structures. In section 2, Imaging Oxide-Covered Doped Si Structures Using LEEM, we show that the LEEM technique is able to provide reasonably high contrast images across lateral pn junctions. The observed contrast is attributed to a work function difference ({Delta}{phi}) between the p- and n-type regions. However, because the doped regions were buried under a thermal oxide ({approx}3.5 nm thick), e-beam charging during imaging prevented quantitative measurements of {Delta}{phi}. As part of this project, we also investigated a series of similar test structures in which the thermal oxide was removed by a chemical etch. With the oxide removed, we obtained intensity-versus-voltage (I-V) curves through the transition from mirror to LEEM mode and determined the relative positions of the vacuum cutoffs for the differently doped regions. Although the details are not discussed in this report, the relative position in voltage of the vacuum cutoffs are a direct measure of the work function difference ({Delta}{phi}) between the p- and n-doped regions.