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
 
(11 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 45: Line 51:
</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 ==
== Comments ==


The process looks to be too etch aggressive, not enough passivation.  I would consider any or all of the following:  
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)
* Decreasing the wafer temperature (make more passivant)
* Increasing C4F8 flow (make more passivant)
* Increasing C4F8 flow (make more passivant)
Line 63: Line 97:
|-
|-
| Gas Flow (sccm)
| Gas Flow (sccm)
| SF<sub>6</sub>  38 + C<sub>4</sub>F<sub>8</sub> 70
| SF<sub>6</sub>  38 + '''C<sub>4</sub>F<sub>8</sub> 70'''
|-
|-
| Pressure (mT)
| Pressure (mT)
Line 72: Line 106:
|-  
|-  
| Coil power (W)
| Coil power (W)
| 450  
| '''450'''
|-
|-
| Matching (Forward/ Load)
| Matching (Forward/ Load)
Line 78: Line 112:
|-
|-
| HF Platen power (W)
| HF Platen power (W)
| 100  
| '''100'''
|-  
|-  
| Matching (Forward/ Load)  
| Matching (Forward/ Load)  
Line 86: Line 120:
| 01:30  
| 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"