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

From LabAdviser
Jml (talk | contribs)
Jml (talk | contribs)
Line 48: Line 48:
== 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)

Revision as of 08:39, 31 March 2011

The nano1.0 recipe

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



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