Specific Process Knowledge/Etch/ICP Metal Etcher/Sinano1 - Revision history

Jmli at 06:35, 4 April 2025

2025-04-04T06:35:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:35, 4 April 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->		<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->
	<!--Checked for updates on 24/8-2021. ok/ jmli-->		<!--Checked for updates on 24/8-2021. ok/ jmli-->
			<!--Checked for updates on 4/4-2025 - ok/jmli -->

	== The first nanoetch recipe ==		== The first nanoetch recipe ==

Jmli at 14:17, 24 August 2021

2021-08-24T14:17:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:17, 24 August 2021
Line 2:		Line 2:
	<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->		<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->
	<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->		<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->
			<!--Checked for updates on 24/8-2021. ok/ jmli-->

	== The first nanoetch recipe ==		== The first nanoetch recipe ==
	<!-- revised 1/6-2015 by jmli -->		<!-- revised 1/6-2015 by jmli -->

Jmli at 08:49, 10 July 2019

2019-07-10T08:49:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:49, 10 July 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<!--Checked for updates on 10/7-2019 - ok/jmli -->
	<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->		<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->

	<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->		<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->
	== The first nanoetch recipe ==		== The first nanoetch recipe ==

Jmli: /* The first nanoetch recipe */

2017-06-27T09:42:59Z

The first nanoetch recipe

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 27 June 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->		<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->

			<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->
	== The first nanoetch recipe ==		== The first nanoetch recipe ==
	<!-- revised 1/6-2015 by jmli -->		<!-- revised 1/6-2015 by jmli -->

Jmli: /* The first nanoetch recipe */

2017-06-27T09:39:55Z

The first nanoetch recipe

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 27 June 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<!-- Ok, jmli 20170627 -->

	== The first nanoetch recipe ==		== The first nanoetch recipe ==
	<!-- revised 1/6-2015 by jmli -->		<!-- revised 1/6-2015 by jmli -->

Jmli: /* The first nanoetch recipe */

2015-06-01T12:09:57Z

The first nanoetch recipe

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:09, 1 June 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== The first nanoetch recipe ==		== The first nanoetch recipe ==
			<!-- revised 1/6-2015 by jmli -->
	{\| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1"		{\| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1"
	\|+ '''The starting point'''		\|+ '''The starting point'''

Jml at 09:51, 8 August 2011

2011-08-08T09:51:51Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 11:51, 8 August 2011
Line 1:	Line 1:
		== The first nanoetch recipe ==

		{\| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1"
		\|+ '''The starting point'''
		\|-
		! rowspan="6" align="center"\| Break
		\| Gas
		\| Cl<sub>2</sub> 20 sccm
		\|-
		\| Pressure
		\| 2 mTorr, Strike 3 secs @ 5 mTorr
		\|-
		\| Power
		\| 600 W CP, 200 W PP
		\|-
		\| Temperature
		\| 20 degs
		\|-
		\| Hardware
		\| 100 mm Spacers
		\|-
		\| Time
		\| 15 secs
		\|-
		! rowspan="6" align="center"\| Main
		\| Gas
		\| HBr 20 sccm
		\|-
		\| Pressure
		\| 2 mTorr, Strike 3 secs @ 5 mTorr
		\|-
		\| Power
		\| 900 W CP, 50 W PP
		\|-
		\| Temperature
		\| 20 degs
		\|-
		\| Hardware
		\| 100 mm Spacers
		\|-
		\| Time
		\| ? secs
		\|-
		\|}
		ER 200 nm/min, 3:1 over resist. Vertical profile. To improve selectivity to oxide under-layers you can add a small amount of O2 ( e.g 2 sccm if the MFC is small enough). This should not give an undercut.

		<gallery caption="First tests of the nanoetch recipe" widths="300px" heights="300px" perrow="2">
		Image:WF 2F-6_dec092010-30_nm.jpg\|The 30 nm trenches are somewhat wider due to overexposure of E-beam resist
		image:WF 2F-6_dec092010-120_nm.jpg\|The 30 nm trenches are somewhat wider due to overexposure of E-beam resist
		</gallery>
		It looks like the trenches are closing up as the etch goes deeper, consistent with too much polymer deposition on the sidewall.

		The options I would look at are
		1) to reduce the coil power to 700W so that the dc bias of the etch increases & you sputter more of the polymer off.
		2) increase the platen temperature to 40 C so as to reduce polymer condensation on the wafer.
		3) substitute Cl2 for some of the HBr - try a 50: 50 mix of Cl2 / HBr for the main etch with the same total gas flow.
		This will reduce the amount of polymerising species in the plasma & therefore help reduce the amount of sidewall deposition.
		I would try these separately.

		Just as a sanity check, have you got any pre-etch SEM images of the ZEP? There's a contradiction in the SEM images - in that you are seeing what looks to be undercut, whilst the trenches are also closing up. One effect is consistent with too little polymerisation whilst the other is caused by too much. The breakthrough step is actually quite a physical & directional etch, which usually doesn't cause an undercut. What exposed area do you have on the samples?
		[http://www.example.com link title]

Jml: Removing all content from page

2011-08-08T09:51:30Z

Removing all content from page

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:51, 8 August 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~== The first nanoetch recipe ==~~

	~~{\| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1"~~
	~~\|+ '''The starting point'''~~
	\|-
	~~! rowspan="6" align="center"\| Break~~
	~~\| Gas~~
	~~\| Cl<sub>2</sub> 20 sccm~~
	\|-
	~~\| Pressure~~
	~~\| 2 mTorr, Strike 3 secs @ 5 mTorr~~
	\|-
	~~\| Power~~
	~~\| 600 W CP, 200 W PP~~
	\|-
	~~\| Temperature~~
	~~\| 20 degs~~
	\|-
	~~\| Hardware~~
	~~\| 100 mm Spacers~~
	\|-
	~~\| Time~~
	~~\| 15 secs~~
	\|-
	~~! rowspan="6" align="center"\| Main~~
	~~\| Gas~~
	~~\| HBr 20 sccm~~
	\|-
	~~\| Pressure~~
	~~\| 2 mTorr, Strike 3 secs @ 5 mTorr~~
	\|-
	~~\| Power~~
	~~\| 900 W CP, 50 W PP~~
	\|-
	~~\| Temperature~~
	~~\| 20 degs~~
	\|-
	~~\| Hardware~~
	~~\| 100 mm Spacers~~
	\|-
	~~\| Time~~
	~~\| ? secs~~
	\|-
	\|}
	ER 200 nm/min, 3:1 over resist. Vertical profile. To improve selectivity to oxide under-layers you can add a small amount of O2 ( e.g 2 sccm if the MFC is small enough). This should not give an undercut.

	~~<gallery caption="First tests of the nanoetch recipe" widths="300px" heights="300px" perrow="2">~~
	~~Image:WF 2F-6_dec092010-30_nm.jpg\|The 30 nm trenches are somewhat wider due to overexposure of E-beam resist~~
	~~image:WF 2F-6_dec092010-120_nm.jpg\|The 30 nm trenches are somewhat wider due to overexposure of E-beam resist~~
	~~</gallery>~~
	~~It looks like the trenches are closing up as the etch goes deeper, consistent with too much polymer deposition on the sidewall.~~

	~~The options I would look at are~~
	~~1) to reduce the coil power to 700W so that the dc bias of the etch increases & you sputter more of the polymer off.~~
	~~2) increase the platen temperature to 40 C so as to reduce polymer condensation on the wafer.~~
	~~3) substitute Cl2 for some of the HBr - try a 50: 50 mix of Cl2 / HBr for the main etch with the same total gas flow.~~
	~~This will reduce the amount of polymerising species in the plasma & therefore help reduce the amount of sidewall deposition.~~
	~~I would try these separately.~~

	Just as a sanity check, have you got any pre-etch SEM images of the ZEP? There's a contradiction in the SEM images - in that you are seeing what looks to be undercut, whilst the trenches are also closing up. One effect is consistent with too little polymerisation whilst the other is caused by too much. The breakthrough step is actually quite a physical & directional etch, which usually doesn't cause an undercut. What exposed area do you have on the samples?
	~~[http://www.example.com link title]~~

Jehan at 06:51, 7 April 2011

2011-04-07T06:51:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:51, 7 April 2011
Line 54:		Line 54:
	1) to reduce the coil power to 700W so that the dc bias of the etch increases & you sputter more of the polymer off.		1) to reduce the coil power to 700W so that the dc bias of the etch increases & you sputter more of the polymer off.
	2) increase the platen temperature to 40 C so as to reduce polymer condensation on the wafer.		2) increase the platen temperature to 40 C so as to reduce polymer condensation on the wafer.
	3) substitute Cl2 for some of the HBr - try a 50: 50 mix of Cl2 / HBr for the main etch with the same total gas flow. This will reduce the amount of polymerising species in the plasma & therefore help reduce the amount of sidewall deposition. I would try these separately.		3) substitute Cl2 for some of the HBr - try a 50: 50 mix of Cl2 / HBr for the main etch with the same total gas flow.
			This will reduce the amount of polymerising species in the plasma & therefore help reduce the amount of sidewall deposition.
			I would try these separately.

	Just as a sanity check, have you got any pre-etch SEM images of the ZEP? There's a contradiction in the SEM images - in that you are seeing what looks to be undercut, whilst the trenches are also closing up. One effect is consistent with too little polymerisation whilst the other is caused by too much. The breakthrough step is actually quite a physical & directional etch, which usually doesn't cause an undercut. What exposed area do you have on the samples?		Just as a sanity check, have you got any pre-etch SEM images of the ZEP? There's a contradiction in the SEM images - in that you are seeing what looks to be undercut, whilst the trenches are also closing up. One effect is consistent with too little polymerisation whilst the other is caused by too much. The breakthrough step is actually quite a physical & directional etch, which usually doesn't cause an undercut. What exposed area do you have on the samples?
	[http://www.example.com link title]		[http://www.example.com link title]

Jml at 12:02, 24 February 2011

2011-02-24T12:02:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:02, 24 February 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
			== The first nanoetch recipe ==

	{\| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1"		{\| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1"
Line 57:		Line 57:

	Just as a sanity check, have you got any pre-etch SEM images of the ZEP? There's a contradiction in the SEM images - in that you are seeing what looks to be undercut, whilst the trenches are also closing up. One effect is consistent with too little polymerisation whilst the other is caused by too much. The breakthrough step is actually quite a physical & directional etch, which usually doesn't cause an undercut. What exposed area do you have on the samples?		Just as a sanity check, have you got any pre-etch SEM images of the ZEP? There's a contradiction in the SEM images - in that you are seeing what looks to be undercut, whilst the trenches are also closing up. One effect is consistent with too little polymerisation whilst the other is caused by too much. The breakthrough step is actually quite a physical & directional etch, which usually doesn't cause an undercut. What exposed area do you have on the samples?
			[http://www.example.com link title]