Effects of Interfacial Strength and Dimension of Structures on Physical Cleaning Window

Abstract

Four different types of FINs; amorphous Si (a-Si), annealed a-Si, polycrystalline Si (poly-Si) and crystalline Si (c-Si) were used to investigate the effect of interfacial strength and the length of structures on the physical cleaning window by measuring their collapse forces by atomic force microscope (AFM). A transmission electron microscope (TEM) and a nanoneedle with a nanomanipulator in a scanning electron microscope (SEM) were employed in order to explain the different collapse behavior and their forces. Different fracture shapes and collapse forces of FINs could explain the influence of the interfacial strength on the pattern strength. Furthermore, the different lengths of a-Si FINs were prepared and their collapse forces were measured and the shorter length reduced their pattern strength. Strong adhesion at the interface resulted in a wider process window while smaller dimensions made the process window narrower.

Influence of surface tension on cavitation noise spectra and particle removal efficiency in high frequency ultrasound fields

“…The second observation that can be made is that HKMG structures are more resistant to megasonic damage compared to SiON structures, thus clearly indicating a higher interfacial strength for HKMG and a higher resistance against the cavitation-induced pattern collapse. 28,29 In conclusion, the addition of a non-ionic surfactant to the cleaning liquid has a twofold effect. On one hand, for a specific applied acoustic power, lowering the bulk surface tension leads to a significant decrease in the damage formation, for the lower PRE values (<60%), compared with a UPW reference liquid.…”

“…The interfacial strength of SiON structures has been previously quantified in our group by AFM collapse force measurements. 28 Dedicated damage areas are patterned on the wafer die, with a line width of 30 nm and an interline distance of 500 nm (Fig. 9).…”

Selective Wet Etching of Silicon Germanium in Composite Vertical Nanowires

“…Another possible reason for nanowire breaking is the interfacial (SiGe/Si) stress. Note that the interfacial stress induced by a lattice mismatch between Si and SiGe is expected to be more significant for smaller nanostructures, , and may cause the nanowires to break at the SiGe/Si interface once the nanowire diameter is sufficiently small because of the etching. Recall that a significant fraction of thin nanowires also breaks during the drying phase, but they rarely break at the SiGe/Si interface (Figure A), which implies that structural integrity at the interface is compromised only when the nanowires are substantially thin.…”

Nanoparticle Removal with Megasonics: A Review

“…Kim et al measured the collapse force of several structures and the removal force of silica and polystyrene latex particles. [11][12][13][14] The structure collapse force depends on the device dimensions and materials and is typically located in between 500 nN and 10 μN (see Fig. 1).…”

“…Figure 1. Lateral force microscopy measurements which indicate the collapse force of several structures and the removal force of silica and PSL particles.The process window (between dashed lines) indicates the allowed physical forces which do not destroy the weakest structure but do remove all particles with a diameter below 500 nm (adapted from) 11. …”