Specific Process Knowledge/Thin film deposition/Deposition of Aluminium/Al Ebeam evaporation in Temescal

From LabAdviser
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feedback to this page: click here

This page is written by Evgeniy Shkondin @DTU Nanolab if nothing else is stated.
All images and photos on this page belongs to DTU Nanolab.
The fabrication and characterization described below were conducted in 2019 by Evgeniy Shkondin, DTU Nanolab.


Deposition characteristics

This page presents the results of Al deposition using PVD e-beam evaporator (Temescal). In total 5 samples with deposition rates 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 Å/s was prepared. Samples were investigated by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), X-ray Reflectivity (XRR) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM).


Deposition setpoints

Deposition setpoints


Tooling factor (%) 88 Soak 1 Rise Time (s) 30 Deposition rate (Å/s)

2-10


Density (g/cm3) 2.7 Soak 1 Power (%) 20 Final Thickness (kÅ)

0.8


Z-ratio 1.08 Soak 1 Time (s) 30 Base Pressure (Torr) 10-6


Control gain (Å/s)%Power 4 Soak 2 Rise Time (s) 30 Doom Rotation speed (rpm) 15


Control TC (s) 0.1 Soak 2 Power (%) 33 Idle Ramp Time (s) 20


Control DT (s) 0.1 Soak 2 Time (s) 120 Cool Time (s) 60


Monitoring of Power and Deposition rate

After each deposition a specific file that contains all monitored parameters is saved with the given name. At the page below, the monitored values for deposition rate and power is presented. The depicted data illustrate the range between the end of "SOAK 2" phase and monitored deposition and the feed power at the end.

Fluctuations of power and deposition rate during the Al e-beam evaporation (Temescal)

XPS analysis


XPS profiles for Al films has been obtained using XPS K-Alpha equipment. No difference in chemical composition is observed in the Al films prepared at different deposition rates. Here, only the analysis results of 2 Å/s film are shown.


X-ray reflectivity results


X-ray reflectivity (XRR) profiles for Al films at different deposition rates has been obtained using Rigaku XRD SmartLab equipment. Fitting procesure was performed using commercial GlobalFit software assuming the model based on Si substrate with native oxide followed by the deposited Al layer with thin oxidized surface. The results are summarized in a table below. The general trend is that the higher deposition rates produces smoother films. Indeed, at deposition rate of 10Å/s the characteristic Kiessig fringes are visible even at above 30, which indicates the existence of higher quality layers.





XRR results


Top layer (moisture and native Al2O3) Main layer Si native oxide Si substrate


Deposition rate (Å/s) Al2O3 thickness (nm) Al2O3 density (g/cm3) Al2O3 roughness (nm) Al thickness (nm) Al density (g/cm3) Al roughness (nm) SiO2 thickness (nm) SiO2 density (g/cm3) SiO2 roughness (nm) Si thickness (nm) Si density (g/cm3) Si roughness (nm)


2 1.63 3.31 2.62

73.85

2.79

1.72

0.78 1.568 0.91 2.35 0.17


4 1.57 3.46 2.66

69.06

2.73

1.85

0.84 1.55 1.17 2.27 0.20
6 1.57 3.47 2.23

70.78

2.84

1.51

0.83 1.54 0.92 2.27 0.16
8 1.51 3.37 2.21

71.41

2.72

1.44

0.79 1.56 1.01 2.28 0.19
10 1.57 3.47 1.68

74.63

2.72

0.96

0.81 1.48 1.28 2.25 0.14




Sheet resistance

Four point probe measurements
Deposition rate (Å/s) 2 4 6 8 10
Measured sheet resistance (mOhm/sq) 546 553 515 687 497




SEM results

The film surface morphology has been observed by SEM. Magnification is identical on all images (150 kX). It seems that the density of grain boundaries becomes less and the individual grains becomes larger as the deposition rate increases. Nevertheless, since the SEM alone cannot unambiguously claim that statement, it need to be verified by X-ray diffraction grain analysis.