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

From LabAdviser
VisualWikitext
Jml (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, danchip, Administrators
1,918 edits
New page: == The nano1.0 recipe == {| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" |+ '''Recipe nano1.0''' |- ! rowspan="6" align="center"| Recipe | Gas | C<sub>4</sub>F<sub>8</sub> 38 sccm, HBr 15 ...
 
Jmli (talk | contribs)
DCH-Employees-701, NLAB-Employees-701, NLAB-LabmanagerAllUsers
4,400 edits
 
(16 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 -->
== 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 6: Line 12:
! rowspan="6" align="center"| Recipe
! rowspan="6" align="center"| Recipe
| Gas
| Gas
| C<sub>4</sub>F<sub>8</sub> 38 sccm, HBr 15 sccm
| C<sub>4</sub>F<sub>8</sub> 38 sccm, SF<sub>6</sub> 52 sccm
|-
|-
| Pressure
| Pressure
| 2 mTorr, Strike 3 secs @ 5 mTorr
| 4 mTorr, Strike 3 secs @ 15 mTorr
|-
|-
| Power
| Power
| 900 W CP, 50 W PP
| 800 W CP, 50 W PP
|-  
|-  
| Temperature
| Temperature
| 20 degs
| 10 degs
|-
|-
| Hardware
| Hardware
Line 21: Line 27:
|-
|-
| Time
| Time
| 150 secs
| 120 secs
|-
|-
! rowspan="3" align="center"| Conditions
! rowspan="3" align="center"| Conditions
| Run ID
| Run ID
| 417, 418 and 419
| 1801
|-
|-
| Conditioning
| Conditioning
Line 31: Line 37:
|-
|-
| Mask
| Mask
| 110 nm zep etched down to 64 nm
| 1dfhj10 nm zep etched down to 6dgh4 nm
|-  
|-  
|}
|}




<gallery caption="The results of the Sinano3.0 recipe" widths="250" heights="200" perrow="3">
<gallery caption="The results of the nano1.0 recipe" widths="250" heights="200" perrow="3">
image:WF_2A4_feb06_2011-030.jpg|The 30 nm trenches
image:WF_2C3feb2011-030.jpg|The 30 nm trenches
image:WF_2A4_feb06_2011-060.jpg|The 60 nm trenches
image:WF_2C3feb2011-060.jpg|The 60 nm trenches
image:WF_2A4_feb06_2011-090.jpg|The 90 nm trenches
image:WF_2C3feb2011-090.jpg|The 90 nm trenches
image:WF_2A4_feb06_2011-120.jpg|The 120 nm trenches
image:WF_2C3feb2011-120.jpg|The 120 nm trenches
image:WF_2A4_feb06_2011-150.jpg|The 150 nm trenches
image:WF_2C3feb2011-150.jpg|The 150 nm trenches
BCl3 5 sccm, HBr 15 sccm, 2 mTorr, Strike 3 secs @ 5 mTorr, 900 W CP, 50 W PP, 20 degs, 180 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?

Latest revision as of 16:17, 2 February 2023

Feedback to this page: click here

The nano1.0 recipe

Unless otherwise stated, all content on this page was created by Jonas Michael-Lindhard, DTU Nanolab

Recipe nano1.0
Recipe Gas C4F8 38 sccm, SF6 52 sccm
Pressure 4 mTorr, Strike 3 secs @ 15 mTorr
Power 800 W CP, 50 W PP
Temperature 10 degs
Hardware 100 mm Spacers
Time 120 secs
Conditions Run ID 1801
Conditioning Sequence: Oxygen clean, MU tests, processes, no oxygen between runs
Mask 1dfhj10 nm zep etched down to 6dgh4 nm



Nominal trench line width ' 30 60 90 120 150 Avg 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:

Etch
Gas Flow (sccm) SF6 38 + C4F8 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&oldid=44047"