Part III – March 1968 - Papers - Evaluation of Bulk and Epitaxial GaAs by Means of X-Ray Topography

The effects of methods of crystal growing, wafer sawing, polishing, routine handling, diffusion, and epitaxial growth on the defects in GaAs are reviewed and studied using reflection and transmission X-ray topographic techniques. In general, it was found that boat-grown crystals exhibited fewer defects than Czochralski crystals, although all crystals showed large numbers of precipitates visible when examined in the electron microscope. Mechanical surface treatments such as sawing and mechanical polishing introduce damage to a depth of about 5 µ, most of which can be removed by suitable chemical or chem-mechanical polishing. In addition, defects can be introduced through routine handling of wafers, for example with metallic tweezers. These defects can be quite severe, and have been observed 20 µ below the wafer surface. Defects can also be introduced through diffusion and epitaxial growth. These defects, which include precipitates, growth pyramids, stacking faults, dislocations, and so forth, can be detrimental to device fabrication. It is shown that wafers or films which appear defect-free optically can contain defects visible in the X-ray topographs. WHILE the use of GaAs in the semiconductor industry has increased very rapidly in the last few years, due mainly to the recent development of many important GaAs devices,1,2 the major limit to the production of commercial quantities of many GaAs devices remains a severe lack of suitable materials technology. This lack is apparent in two critical areas. First, production quantities of high-quality GaAs crystals, reproducibly doped and precipitate-free, simply are not available commercially, although some reasonable quality material is available on a limited first-come, first-serve basis. Second, in comparison to silicon technology, little is known about the effects of processing variables on the defects either present in as-grown GaAs or introduced through processing and handling of wafers. These areas are now receiving some attention from semiconductor device manufacturers, who are studying defects in GaAs in order to better understand how either to prevent their occurrence or to cope with their existence. Most investigations of the defects in GaAs have been made by optical microscopy3-5 or transmission electron microscopy techniques.'-' Recently, however, the imaging techniques of X-ray topography, electron mi-croprobe analysis, and scanning electron microscopy are being applied to the study of GaAs.9-14 In the case of X-ray topography, a one-to-one image is obtained that must be photographically enlarged. In compensa- tion, the defects within entire wafers may be imaged by simple scanning (Lang technique15) if the wafer is reasonably perfect, or by using the scan oscillation technique developed by Schwuttke16 if the wafer is warped or distorted. The purpose of this paper is to both review and extend the general application of X-ray topographic techniques to GaAs. Emphasis will be placed on the effects of growth and process variables on the quality and perfection of both bulk and epitaxial GaAs. Reference to optical or electron microscopy results will be made when useful. Since the effects on defects of a wide variety of processing variables such as crystal growing, sawing, polishing, diffusion, and epitaxial growth will be somewhat superficially reviewed, a fairly extensive bibliography of the most important recent results in these areas is included. However, for completeness, important defects will be illustrated here, although such defects have been previously shown by others. While this paper is concerned with defects rather than with the physics of X-ray scattering, the mechanisms of contrast formation in the topographs will of necessity be briefly mentioned. EXPERIMENTAL GaAs crystals, both boat-grown18 and Czochralski-grown,'8 containing a variety of dopants of various concentrations, were purchased from outside vendors. Wafers were sliced from the crystals using a Hamco ID saw and were mechanically polished using 1 µ diamond paste. Chem-mechanical polishing was done in bromine-methanol as described by Sullivan and Kolb.18 Chemical polishing was done using a modified sulfuric-peroxide solution, 11 parts H2SO4, 1 part 30 pct H2O2, 1 part DI water.5 Zinc diffusion was carried out in a closed tube, using a 10 pct Zn-In source at 825°C for 1 hr. Oxide masking techniques were used to select the area to be diffused. Epitaxial wafers were either purchased or prepared here. All epitaxial runs prepared here were carried out using a Ga-GaAs-AsC13 source in a closed tube at a substrate temperature of 750°C. Wafers were chem-mechanically polished and gas-etched prior to deposition. The X-ray topographs were taken on a Krystallos Lang camera, operating in the transmission scanning geometry (Lang technique15) or in the reflection scanning geometry (modified Berg-Barrett technique20,21). MoKa, radiation was used for all transmission topographs using a Jarrell-Ash 100-µ spot focus. CuKal radiation was used for all reflection topographs using a General Electric CA-7 1-mm spot focus X- ray tube. Topographs were printed from an intermediate contrast inversion film, so the contrast shown in all figures here is the same as that of the original 50-µ-thick emulsion L4 Iiford nuclear plate used to record the topograph.