This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
INDUSTRY COATINGS


process, select processes can produce a thickness uniformity within a range of +/-1.5 percent on 150 mm wafers. The range of processes capable of delivering this level of uniformity expands with the addition of a second axis of rotation, which is found in the HULA tools.


Figure 10. The calculated values can be compared to experimental values


We have also compared the calculated results for titanium (shown in Figure 8) with measurements on 20 nm-thick titanium films. Comparisons were made by plotting deviations from the average thickness for each substrate, and measuring the titanium film thickness with an optical technique that is sensitive to tiny variations in average thickness over the measurement area. There is good agreement between calculated and measured values, but some discrepancy at levels near +/-0.2 percent (see Figure 10). In this thickness range a 1 percent variation in thickness is comparable to the diameter of an atom, and this level of uniformity indicates a remarkably uniform distribution of atoms across the substrate.


Some of these measurements reveal a small decline in thickness between the inner and outer portions of the wafer. However, there is also other structure apparent, which varies from substrate to substrate. Although these features will partly be caused by measurement uncertainty, it is not possible to rule out substrate mechanical positioning as a contributing factor behind the thickness variation. When films are this uniform, variations in thickness that result from an angular tilt to the substrate or a radial displacement of just 0.04” become apparent.


Wafer-related limitations Another impediment to realising a perfectly uniform film is the flatness of the substrate. For lift-off, the substrate is oriented in such a manner that at its centre, the direction of the impinging incidence flux is normal. Consequently, deposition at the edges of the substrate occurs at a small angle from normal. Making matters worse, the distance to the source is larger at the edges of the substrate than its centre. This difference is magnified as wafer diameter increases, but can be reduced by increasing the


distance between the electron-beam source and the substrate – although this action has downsides, such as reduced deposition rates.


Inserting a shadow mask into the electron-beam evaporator can address variations in film thickness in the radial direction. However, in the direction perpendicular to this – the cross-wafer direction – the mask has a limited influence on reductions in film thickness.


Variation in film thickness due to flat wafers is also influenced by the number of axes of rotation in the system: the HULA motion without a shadow mask gives some slight improvement over the single axis motion without a mask, but the single axis and HULA results are effectively identical after the addition of a shadow mask (see Figure 11).


These uniformities, and those revealed in other plots presented in this feature, indicate that users of electron-beam evaporators have entered a new era for process tolerances and expectations in a production tool. When a single-axis tool is built to tight mechanical tolerances and runs a well-controlled and stable


For the deposition of eutectic films, this level of uniformity can mean the difference between an experimental process and a production wafer. But that’s not all, as this level of uniformity can also drive further manufacturing efficiencies, thanks to reduced product binning − the sorting of finished devices based on variations in performance characteristics, such as voltage output, operational frequency and thermal tolerance. Such variations result from process variables and the inherent limits of each process, with a wider spectrum of product binning increasing parametric yield loss, which is the cost- per-wafer after sorting.


To increase uniformity to inside the +/-1 percent range requires the addressing of additional impairments to perfect film growth. This is hampered by wafer flatness, with success demanding even tighter tolerances on the mechanical systems that support and move the substrates. Programmes directed at uniformities of better than +/-1 percent must also consider whether the metrology is capable of accurately and consistently reporting the correct thickness. This is particularly challenging when the goal is to achieve differences in thickness that are smaller than that of the typical substrate surface roughness, or in the case of thin films, where the difference can be less than the width of an atom.


© 2014 Angel Business Communications. Permission required.


Figure 11. Without a mask, the addition of a second axes of rotation leads to a significant improvement in cross-wafer uniformity. But when the mask is added, this difference is minimal


March 2014 www.compoundsemiconductor.net 31


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164