1 / 37

SU-8 Testing ( v1l)

SU-8 Testing ( v1l). Thin SU8 on glass slide Test: Soft Bake (SB) and Post Exposure Bake (PEB). 1. “ Control ” Recipe. Spin Coating: 10 s @ 500 rpm; 30 s @ 2000 rpm expected thickness: 600 nm Soft Bake (SB): 60 s @ 93°C

dezso
Download Presentation

SU-8 Testing ( v1l)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SU-8 Testing (v1l) • Thin SU8 on glass slide • Test: • Soft Bake (SB) and • Post Exposure Bake (PEB) 1

  2. “Control” Recipe • Spin Coating: 10 s @ 500 rpm; 30 s @ 2000 rpm • expected thickness: 600 nm • Soft Bake (SB): 60 s @ 93°C • Exposure: 8 s @ 275 W setting (power meter readings: (11.3±0.1)mW/cm2 - done before set #1 and after set #5) • PEB: 60s @ 93°C • Develop: 4 min in SU8 developer • SU8 developer rinse • IPA rinse/Nitrogen Dry • 1, 3, 6, 7 are the same for all “tests” • 5 is also the same for tests 1-3, and for test 4: 1 min 2 2

  3. 1st Set of Tests • 4 samples; 8 devices/sample • 4 Wells (W)+4 Blanks (B)/sample • S1: “Control”: Misaligned (see next slide); All shorted; R(W) ~ 8.6 Ω; R(B) ~ 10 Ω • Test Parameters for S2-4: • SB (RT Evap) and PEB @ 60°C, same times for each • S2: 8 min: • R(W) = (2.7±0.8) Ω; R(B) = (11±0) MΩ; C(B) = (15.0 ± 0.1) pF • S3: 13 min: Also misaligned (see next slide) • R(W) = (4.9±?) Ω; R(B) = (6 ± 8) MΩ; C(B) = (17.0 ± 0.5) pF • S4: 15 min: • R(W) = (4 ± 1) Ω; R(B) = (11±0) MΩ; C(B) = (17 ± 0) pF • Cracking patterns seen in S2, S3, S4 3 3

  4. Findings/Discussion 1st Set • “Control”: All shorted • The “misalignment” ONLY causes • Top contacts don’t fully overlap guide circles on bottom that could result in the top contact not covering the well (is this the case? If not say so) – will NOT cause short • Top contacts touching two exposure regions • either single + double exposures (normal) – NOT cause short, • or single + no exposures (should not happen but may - according to Mark, but microscopy can tell us – presence of a well – check to confirm and revise here …) – MAY cause short (ONLY no exposure) • RT Evap + PEB @ 60°C at various times: All good • All Wells are shorted with a narrow range of R • All Blanks have good Cs also with narrow range • Next thing to do is to estimate thickness from geometry from C • The two longer time ones exhibit ~10% larger C (difference in dielectric constants or thickness?) • All three show undesirable cracking patterns (under baked/sticky surface or over baked – low solvent, bubbling etc.?) 4

  5. 2nd Set of Test Samples • 4 samples • 2 “Controls”: S5-6 • Test Parameters for S7-8: • 1 min PEB @ 93°C and Vary SB time @ 60°C • S7: SB: 2.5 min • S8: SB: 5 min 5 5

  6. 2nd Test Results - “Control 1” S5 Summary: W: 4/4 Shorted B: 3/4 Shorted R(W): (12 ± 10) Ω Excluding #3 R(B): (158± 230) Ω C(B,#3) – very low (9.38 pF) compared to 1st set but comparable to S6 (also a Control - next slide). 6

  7. S5 “Control”100x 13 13

  8. “Control 2” S6 Summary: W: 2/4 Shorted (2 Damaged by high voltage – 1V) B: 0/4 Shorted R(W): (94± 68) Ω; C(B): (9.6± 0.5) pF 7

  9. S6 “Control”@ 20x This image size is good (covering the entire crossbar) – perhaps larger ones covering up to the reference dots would be even better; at the current stage, there’s no need to have too many zoomed in images. 11 11

  10. S6 “Control”100x 12 12

  11. 2.5 min SB S7 Summary: All Shorted R(B): (185 ± 211) Ω; R(W): (8 ± 5) Ω 8

  12. S7 2.5min SB 100x 14 14

  13. 5 min SB S8 Summary: W: 3/4 Shorted (why not 4/4?) B: 3/4 Shorted R(Blank): (30 ± 20) Ω (#8 excluded) R(Well): (3.7 ± 1.6) Ω (#7 excluded) 7*: Re-measured and consistent with capacitance 9

  14. S8 5min SB 100x 15 15

  15. Findings/Discussion for 2nd Set (S5-S8) • The two “Controls”: • S5 is essentially all shorted, but R(B) > 10R(W) • S6 is nominally good aside from the 2 damaged devices. But, the 2 shorts are too resistive (~90 Ω) compared to the “benchmark” Set 1 (~few Ω). • C(B) are ~ 9.5 pF rather than 15-17 pF for set 1 (thicker, lower dielectric constants, etc?) • The “Control” recipe is at best marginal thus unreliable (2 shorted and one nominally good out of 3 samples in sets 1 and 2) – consistent with prior Si wafer work (Matt) • S7 and S8 are all shorted, but 20R(W) < R(B) and R(W)<10Ω, These are more consistent with Set 1 aside from being all shorted. • The one good blank out of S8 has capacitance consistent with Set 1 capacitances (S2). 10 10

  16. 3rd Set of Test Samples • 2 samples • Test Parameters for S9-10: • 1 min PEB @ 93°C and Vary SB time @ 60°C (longer SB compared to 2nd set) • S9: SB: 8 min • S10: SB: 12 min 16 16

  17. 8 min - S9 • Back Contact not continuous – visually can’t see where it’s broken • Measured Cs (can measure 2-terminal R) • W: 2/4 Shorted B: 1/4 Shorted • C(B): (19.3 ± 0.6) pF (excl. #2) 17

  18. 12 min - S10 Summary: W: 4/4 Shorted B: 4/4 Shorted Avg Well Resistance: 5.0± 1.2Ω Avg Blank Resistance: 96± 52Ω Double Exposed (16s) 18

  19. Discussion/Findings of Set 3 • S9: • pretty much all open circuit • C(B) slightly higher than Set 1: 19 pF vs 15 and 17 pF • Current measurements unreliable because the back contact is not continuous without visual “flaws” • S10: • All shorted • 10R(W) < R(B) • Consistent with Set 2 19

  20. 4th Set of Test Samples • 3 samples • Test Parameters for S11-13: • 10 min PEB @ 60°C and Vary SB time @ 60°C • Develop: 1 min in SU8 developer (different from previous) • S11: SB: 2 min • S12: SB: 5 min • S13: SB: 10 min 20 20

  21. 2 min SB S11 • Summary: B:3/3 Shorted; W: 2/3 Shorted, 1/3 open • R(B): (8 ± 5) Ω; R(W): (7 ± 7) Ω • Not exposed – “operator error” by Matt • 1 Well open circuit – not fully opened (due to shorter developing time?) 21

  22. 5 min SB S12 Summary: W: 3/4 Shorted (#1 bad); B: 2/4 Shorted (2/4 good) R(W): (4 ± 2) Ω; R(B): (3 ± 4) Ω C(B): (15.6 ± 0.1) pF; C(W): (14 ± 0) *Device 6: looked different – mixed cracking and not cracking - could be partially developed away. 22

  23. 10 min SB S13 Summary: All Shorted R(B): (37 ± 70) Ω; R(W): (6.1± 0.1) Ω *Exclude? 23

  24. Discussion/Findings of Set 4 • All have cracking • Similar to Set 1 • PEB @ 60°C is the possible cause • Nearly All shorted (S11-13) • S11: • All blanks short circuit • R(W) ≈ R(B) • S12: • R(W) ≈ R(B) • C(B) ≈ C(B:Set1) ≈15pF • S13: • R(B) > 6 R(W) • Only 1 “high” R with the rest equal to R(W) 24

  25. Distribution of Resistances for “Shorted” Wells for Sets 1-4 • All devices with C = -1, i.e. Test 1-4 • Stats: … 26

  26. Distribution of Resistances for Shorted Blanks (all devices) • All devices with C = -1, i.e. Test 1-4 • Stats: … 27

  27. Next set: SB @ 90 PEB @ 90 “pseudo Control”Keep track of time E-? Crack? Consistency? SB @ RT PEB @ 60 T1 E-good SB @ 60 PEB @ 93 T2-3 SB @ 60 PEB @ 60 T4 SB @ 93 PEB @ 93 “Control” T1-3 inconsistent Next set: SB @ RT PEB @ 90 Keep track of time E-? Crack? Cracking No-cracking E-no good 25

  28. 5th Set of Test Samples • 3 ‘pseudo-control’samples: S14-16 • softbake and PEB @ 90°C for 1 min • vary the ‘cooling’ time after PEB • S14: Cooling time: ~40s • S15: Cooling time: 3min • S16: Cooling time: 2min • 3 BS @ RT for various times • two ‘lost’ – one dropped and another misaligned • S17 • softbake@room temp. for 10min • PEB @ 90°C for 1min • Cooling time: ~1 min

  29. S14 • Summary: (1/4 open blanks) (4/4 shorted wells) • R(B): (44 ± 75) Ω; R(W): (10 ± 6) Ω • C(B): (10 ± 0) pF 23

  30. S15 • Summary: (2/4 open blanks) (4/4 shorted wells) • R(B): (30 ± 42) Ω; R(W): (16 ± 4) Ω • C(B): (14.3 ± 0.4) pF 23

  31. S15 device 7 (well)5x

  32. S16 • Summary: (3/4 open blanks) (4/4 shorted wells) • R(B): 5 Ω; R(W): (127 ± 155) Ω • C(B): (12 ± 1) pF 23

  33. S16 device 6 (blank)5x

  34. S17 • Summary: (2/3 open blanks) (3/3 shorted wells) • R(B): (10) Ω; R(W): (19 ± 3) Ω • C(B): (10.2 ± 0.7) pF • * not exposed • ** double exposed 23

  35. S17 device 3 (well)5x

  36. Discussion/Findings of Set 5 • Wells have higher resistances than previous samples • S14 (40 s wait) • R(B) ≈ 4R(W), but R(B) has high standard deviation • 1/4 Blanks Good C(B): 10 pF • S15 (3 min wait) • R(B) ≈ 2R(W), but R(B) has high standard deviation • 2/4 Blanks Good C(B): (14.3 ± 0.4) pF • S16 (2 min wait) • R(W) > R(B), but R(W) has high standard deviation ? • 3/4 Blanks Good C(B): (12 ± 1) pF • S17 (SB:RT/PEB:90°C) • R(W) ≈ 2R(B), • 2/3 Blanks Good C(B): (10.2 ± 0.7) pF • Summary: • All samples have cracking – around the crossbars • Double exposed areas (off crossbars) seem to have less ‘cracking’ • Blanks have inconsistent capacitance C = (12 ± 2) pF 24

  37. Additional Questions Raised by Series 5 • What’s causing the cracking in the “pseudo-control” samples? Initial “controls” (S5, S6) have no cracking. • Comparison of some parameters/results • Exposure settings the same. Same Dose: 90 mJ/cm2 • Develop time the same • Slightly lower SB/PEB temp: non-cracking/cracking: (93/90)°C • C(S6):(9.6± 0.5) pF, C(S14-16): (12± 2) pF • RT SB 60°C vs 90°C • Both cracked. So PEB temp doesn’t heal cracking • R(W:60°C) < R(W:90°C); 5 Ωvs 18 Ω • C(B:60°C) > C(B:90°C); 16 pF vs 10 pF

More Related