Jump to content

Specific Process Knowledge/Etch/DRIE-Pegasus/nanoetch/nano10: Difference between revisions

← Older edit
VisualWikitext
Jml (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, danchip, Administrators
1,918 edits
Jmli (talk | contribs)
DCH-Employees-701, NLAB-Employees-701, NLAB-LabmanagerAllUsers
4,569 edits
No edit summary
 
(15 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Feedback to this page''': '''[mailto:labadviser@nanolab.dtu.dk?Subject=Feed%20back%20from%20page%20http://labadviser.nanolab.dtu.dk/index.php/Specific_Process_Knowledge/Etch/DRIE-Pegasus/nanoetch/nano10 click here]'''
<!--Checked for updates on 30/7-2018 - ok/jmli -->
<!--Checked for updates on 5/10-2020 - ok/jmli -->
<!--Checked for updates on 4/9-2025 - ok/jmli -->
== The nano1.0 recipe ==
== The nano1.0 recipe ==
{{Template:Author-jmli1}}
<!--Checked for updates on 2/02-2023 - ok/jmli -->


{| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1"  
{| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1"  
Line 25: Line 31:
! rowspan="3" align="center"| Conditions
! rowspan="3" align="center"| Conditions
| Run ID
| Run ID
| 417, 418 and 419
| 1801
|-
|-
| Conditioning
| Conditioning
Line 37: Line 43:


<gallery caption="The results of the nano1.0 recipe" widths="250" heights="200" perrow="3">
<gallery caption="The results of the nano1.0 recipe" widths="250" heights="200" perrow="3">
image:WF_2C5_feb2011_030.jpg|The 30 nm trenches
image:WF_2C3feb2011-030.jpg|The 30 nm trenches
image:WF_2C5_feb2011_060.jpg|The 60 nm trenches
image:WF_2C3feb2011-060.jpg|The 60 nm trenches
image:WF_2C5_feb2011_090.jpg|The 90 nm trenches
image:WF_2C3feb2011-090.jpg|The 90 nm trenches
image:WF_2C5_feb2011_120.jpg|The 120 nm trenches
image:WF_2C3feb2011-120.jpg|The 120 nm trenches
image:WF_2C5_feb2011_150.jpg|The 150 nm trenches
image:WF_2C3feb2011-150.jpg|The 150 nm trenches
C4F8 52 sccm, SF6 38 sccm, 4 mTorr, Strike 3 secs @ 15 mTorr, 800 W CP, 50 W PP, 10 degs, 120 secs
C4F8 52 sccm, SF6 38 sccm, 4 mTorr, Strike 3 secs @ 15 mTorr, 800 W CP, 50 W PP, 10 degs, 120 secs
</gallery>
</gallery>
{| {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Nominal trench line width'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''''''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''30'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''60'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''90'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''120'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''150'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Avg'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Std'''
|-
| Etch rates||nm/min||239||281||306||320||328||295||36
|-
| Sidewall angle||degs||93||94||93||92||93||93||1
|-
| CD loss||nm/edge||-1||-5||-11||-9||-32||-11||12
|-
| CD loss foot||nm/edge||-1||-5||-11||-9||-2||-5||5
|-
| Bowing||||41||33||29||30||22||31||7
|-
| Curvature||||-51||-50||-43||-39||-42||-45||5
|-
| zep||nm/min||||||||||||46||
|-
|
|}
== Comments ==
The process looks to be too etch aggressive, not enough passivation.  Consider any or all of the following:
* Decreasing the wafer temperature (make more passivant)
* Increasing C4F8 flow (make more passivant)
* Increasing platen power (make more directional)
* Decreasing coil power (make less etch-aggressive and more directional.
Also, if the tool has Short Funnel and 5mm spacers fitted, it may be too close to  the plasma  -  previous good nano-scale etch result was achieved with Long Funnel and 100mm spacers.
The conditions are similar to the nano-etch conditions for acceptance process C:
{| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1"
|-
|
| Etch
|-
| Gas Flow (sccm)
| SF<sub>6</sub>  38 + '''C<sub>4</sub>F<sub>8</sub> 70'''
|-
| Pressure (mT)
| 4
|-
| APC angle (%)
| 33.2
|-
| Coil power (W)
| '''450'''
|-
| Matching (Forward/ Load)
| L/ 33 & T/ 43
|-
| HF Platen power (W)
| '''100'''
|-
| Matching (Forward/ Load)
| L/ 49 & T/ 53
|-
| Time
| 01:30
|-
| Hardware configuration
| 150mm Long  funnel, with baffle & 100mm spacers
|-
| APC Gain
| 7.5 (default)
|-
| Platen Temperature
| 10°C
|}
The highlighted sections are the main differences between the Process C conditions Vs new Imprint Trenches conditions: all of the changes would push the process to be more passivant, less etch aggressive and more directional.
Is there any reason why these conditions are not suitable for the Imprint Trenches etch?
Retrieved from "https://labadviser.nanolab.dtu.dk//index.php?title=Specific_Process_Knowledge/Etch/DRIE-Pegasus/nanoetch/nano10"