2014-10

2014-10Edit

lundi 6/10

Process 2 wafers pour tests multilayers en proximité
Wafers batch 2451 avec 50nm thermal oxide pour être sûr que la mesure à 300K est la bonne (mauvaise exp sur la dernière fois)

Step 1 : inverted resist spin, exposure, develop, clean

bake wafer 1' @ 110°C (solvent evaporation)
spin AZ5214E (batch x from IEF, per 20/01/2014) 60" @ 4krpm
bake 1' @ 110°C
Expo 20mJ/cm2 @ 365nm, Vac contact
bake 2'30 @ 125°C (=setpoint)
Flood expo 300mJ/cm2 @ 365nm
Dev MIF726 35" @ 19.0°C, rinse ODI 60" beaker + 30" water tap

Dice in scriber, pieces of 19.9x29.9mm +  all chips that can be spared

PEKID1cd_1

Step 2 :  evap
evap SPEC new e-beam

Pumped 1h, P_sas = 1.2e-6mb. Open valve -> 5e-7mb 
- Ti pump 60nm @ 0.2nm/s -> P_sas = 1.3e-7mb (gun off)
- Ti 5nm @ 0.5nm/s, 5°, spin 16°/s. P_evap  = 1.4e-7 -> 1.1e-7 (gun off)
- Al 25nm @ 2nm/s, 5°, spin 16°/s. P_evap = 2.5e-7

/!\ The evap rates are not adapted to such low thickness (the spin does not make 360° in the duration of the evap)
5° makes max 120nm displacement (on 1400nm thick layer, but the undercut does not start right from the top of the resist)

Mesures CSNSM (2014-10-08): good Q_int (not fitted), Lk~1pH, Tc very broad

mardi 7/10

PEKID1cd_2 (same but different evap conditions)

- evap SPEC new e-beam

Pumped over night, P_sas = 2.8e-7 mb. Open valve -> 1.2e-7 mb 
- Ti pump 20 nm @ 0.2nm/s -> P_sas = 5.5e-8 mb, P_gun = 3.4e-8, P_sas = 5.0e-8mb (gun off)
- Ti 5.2nm @ 0.2nm/s, 5°, spin 16°/s. P_evap  = 5.0e-8mb -> 4.2e-8mb  (gun off)
- Al 25.7nm @ 1nm/s, 5°, spin 16°/s. P_evap = 1.4 -> 1.9e-7mb

start Al evap as soon as rate is 1nm/s. Ti waited about 2minutes at 4.2e-8mb, and about 5" at higher pressure before Al evap (pressure starts to increase at 300mA on Al)
compare pressures with 23/04/2014 (pumped over night with valve open -> 5e-8 from start, P_ev Ti = 2e-8mb)

- Lift 15' warm aceton + 10" US low power. easy
microscope: the sides of the patterns appear irregular (maybe deposit on the wall because undercut not sufficient). _2 is dirtier than _1

- Ozone plasma 1' @ 100W (20cc O2)
All residues went away on _1, remains on _2 but cleaner

- re-ozone plasma (on both so they have the same treatment) 2' @ 100W
_2 is cleaner but still some residues. However the resonator is clean

- re-ozone plasma (on both so they have the same treatment) 3' @ 100W

Mesures CSNSM: (2014-10-31) no resonance
Picture taken in jan 2015