Specific Process Knowledge/Etch/DRIE-Pegasus/Pegasus-2/ORE with Al2O3 mask: Difference between revisions
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
=Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> mask= | =Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> mask= | ||
In these samples, the hard mask, Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>, was coated in the 150 mm Si wafers using the atomic layer deposition tool (ALD Picosun R200), presented in Figure S. 4. These sets of samples also had the lithography process done in the DUV stepper (Canon FPA-3000 EX4) to deposit 65 nm of BARC and 750 nm of DUV resist. Three different patterns were created after the development: | |||
I. Pillars of 1 µm with 1 µm pitch (50 nm Al2O3 + 65 nm BARC + 750 nm DUV). | |||
II. Holes of 1 µm with 1µm pitch (50 nm Al2O3 + 65 nm BARC + 750 nm DUV). | |||
III. Nanoholes of 200 nm with 400 nm pitch (100 nm Al2O3 + 65 nm BARC + 750 nm DUV). | |||
The Si/Al2O3/BARC/DUV stack was first processed in Pegasus 2 to etch the BARC layer, and the alumina was etched in the III-V ICP tool (III-V Inductively Coupled Plasma, SPTS serial number MP0647), presented in Figure S. 5, using a BCl3/Ar recipe. With pillars and holes, the BARC was etched for 12 min on Pegasus 2, followed by 90 minutes on the III-V ICP. The nanoholes had two different approaches, starting with 260 minutes on the III-V ICP. However, it was seen that after the III-V ICP process, the leftover resist on the sample was removed during the CORE process on Pegasus 2. | |||
=ORE process= | =ORE process= | ||
Revision as of 15:39, 30 January 2023
Feedback to this page: click here
THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
By Maria Farinha @Nanolab Internal, Jan 2023
Al2O3 mask
In these samples, the hard mask, Al2O3, was coated in the 150 mm Si wafers using the atomic layer deposition tool (ALD Picosun R200), presented in Figure S. 4. These sets of samples also had the lithography process done in the DUV stepper (Canon FPA-3000 EX4) to deposit 65 nm of BARC and 750 nm of DUV resist. Three different patterns were created after the development: I. Pillars of 1 µm with 1 µm pitch (50 nm Al2O3 + 65 nm BARC + 750 nm DUV). II. Holes of 1 µm with 1µm pitch (50 nm Al2O3 + 65 nm BARC + 750 nm DUV). III. Nanoholes of 200 nm with 400 nm pitch (100 nm Al2O3 + 65 nm BARC + 750 nm DUV).
The Si/Al2O3/BARC/DUV stack was first processed in Pegasus 2 to etch the BARC layer, and the alumina was etched in the III-V ICP tool (III-V Inductively Coupled Plasma, SPTS serial number MP0647), presented in Figure S. 5, using a BCl3/Ar recipe. With pillars and holes, the BARC was etched for 12 min on Pegasus 2, followed by 90 minutes on the III-V ICP. The nanoholes had two different approaches, starting with 260 minutes on the III-V ICP. However, it was seen that after the III-V ICP process, the leftover resist on the sample was removed during the CORE process on Pegasus 2.
ORE process
Important! The pressure settings used below may no longer be permitted, always check with the Dry etch group.
As stated by Nguyen et al., the SF6 and O2 fluxes are only separated after 4 s during the C-step. Shorter time steps than that do not execute the function of the clearing. After testing recipes with only 2 s of clearing and with no clear step, it was understood it could be eliminated, showing more depth as well as less undercut when going for shorter cycles. From then on, not CORE but ORE recipes were applied D/E = O/RE.
Moreover, during the E-step, the MFC (mass flow controller) presented a delay to read the pressure when compared with the power, creating unwanted bias. To fight it, the E-step was divided into E1 and E2. The E1 of only 2 s is enough to stabilize the pressure, and E2 the profile is etch correctly, without the unwanted bias.
Going further, the process is set with 4 steps, Oxidize, Removal, E1 and E2 steps. In the E1, the pressure will rise, without power applied, so that for the E2 the pressure is already rising and the power starts to be applied.
Pillars
Using patterned samples of 1 μm pillars with 50 nm of Al2O3. After the tests, approximately 32nm of Al2O3 were still intact. During the recipe, Pegasus 2 conditions were: Outer EM=10A, T=20°C, no clamping, no He BGC, no coil power and all heaters OFF.
| Time (s) | Pressure (valve control) | O2 flow (SCCM) | SF6 flow (SCCM) | Platen power (W) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O-step | 10 | 3% | 200 | 0 | 40 |
| R-step | 10 | 100% | 0 | 5 | 40 |
| E1-step | 2 | 4% | 0 | 350 | 40 |
| E2-step | 7 | 4% | 0 | 350 | 300 |
* Pillars profile effect when varying the etch time.
Holes
Using patterned samples of 1 μm holes with 50 nm of Al2O3. After the tests, approximately 28nm of Al2O3 were still intact. When using this recipe, by adjusting the number of cycles, approximately 10 μm were achieved maintaining a straight profile. When going for deeper profiles, 17 μm were also achieved, but the profile starts to get positive. Further work may solve the issue. During the recipe, Pegasus 2 conditions were: Outer EM=10A, T=20°C, no clamping, no He BGC and all heaters OFF.
| Time (s) | Pressure | O2 flow (SCCM) | SF6 flow (SCCM) | Platen power (W) | Coil power (W) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O-step | 10 | 220 mTorr | 200 | 0 | 40 | 0 |
| R-step | 10 | 100% | 0 | 40 | 40 | 0 |
| E1-step | 2 | 220 mTorr | 0 | 1200 | 0 | 0 |
| E2-step | 1-5 | 220 mTorr | 0 | 1200 | 1 | 2000 |
* For #288 cycles, 120 min, the profile depth reaches 17.6 μm. For #144 cycles, 60 min, the profile depth reaches 10.1 μm. Width variation presented in the pictures.
Nanoholes
The nanoholes are 200nm wide, with 400nm pitch with 100 nm Al2O3 mask. During the recipe, Pegasus 2 conditions were: Outer EM=10A, T=20°C, no clamping, no He BGC and all heaters OFF.
| Time (s) | Pressure (valve control) | O2 flow (SCCM) | SF6 flow (SCCM) | Platen power (W) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O-step | 10 | 220 mTorr | 200 | 0 | 40 |
| R-step | 10 | 100% | 0 | 40 | * |
| E1-step | 2 | 220 mTorr | 0 | 350 | 0 |
| E2-step | 0-15 | 220 mTorr | 0 | 350 | 100-300 |
*The R-power value was changed and observed.
The most suitable removal power was 40 W, removing the bottom of the profile correctly without damaging the top part of the profile.
| Time (s) | Pressure (valve control) | O2 flow (SCCM) | SF6 flow (SCCM) | Platen power (W) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O-step | 10 | 220 mTorr | 200 | 0 | 40 |
| R-step | 10 | 100% | 0 | 40 | 40 |
| E1-step | 2 | 220 mTorr | 0 | 350 | 40 |
| E2-step | * | 220 mTorr | 0 | 350 | 300 |
*The E2-time value was changed and observed.
Regarding the measurements of the profiles, in a) the depth reached 3.17 µm with 0-15s of ramping, b) reached 3.21 µm with 1-15s of ramping, c) reached 2.87 µm whit 5-15s of ramping and d) reached 3.63 µm with 15 s without ramping.
Isotropic etch
Some isotropic etches were performed, intercalated with anisotropic etches. The nanoholes are 200nm wide, with 400nm pitch with 100 nm Al2O3 mask. The recipe presented in the table was repeated either 2 or 3 times in order to achieve the picture results. During the recipe, Pegasus 2 conditions were: Outer EM=10A, T=20°C, no clamping, no He BGC and all heaters OFF.
| Time (s) | Pressure | O2 flow (SCCM) | SF6 flow (SCCM) | Platen power (W) | Coil power (W) | ||
| Nanoholes etch | O-step | 10 | 220 mTorr | 200 | 0 | 40 | 0 |
| R-step | 10 | 100% | 0 | 0 | 40 | 0 | |
| E1-step | 2 | 220 mTorr | 0 | 350 | 0 | 0 | |
| E2-step | 0-15 | 220 mTorr | 0 | 350 | 100-300 | 0 | |
| Isotropic etch | O-step | 30 | 200 mTorr | 200 | 0 | 0 | 2000 |
| R-step | 30 | 100% | 0 | 40 | 40 | 0 | |
| E-step | 20 | 200 mTorr | 0 | 1200 | 0 | 2000 |
