su-8 testing ( v1f)

18
SU-8 Testing (v1f) Thin SU8 on glass slide Test: (1)Soft Bake (SB) and (2)Post Exposure Bake (PEB)

Upload: tirza

Post on 22-Feb-2016

45 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

SU-8 Testing ( v1f). Thin SU8 on glass slide Test: Soft Bake (SB) and Post Exposure Bake (PEB). “ 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 PEB: 60s @ 93°C - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

SU-8 Testing (v1f)

Thin SU8 on glass slideTest:(1)Soft Bake (SB) and (2)Post Exposure Bake (PEB)

Page 2: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

“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• PEB: 60s @ 93°C• Develop: 4 min in SU8 developer• SU8 developer rinse • IPA rinse/Nitrogen Dry

Page 3: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

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: 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

Page 4: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

Findings/Discussion 1st Set• “Control”: All shorted

– The “misalignment” ONLY causes 1. 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

2. 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)

• 30 min RT Evap + various PEB time @ 60°C: 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 PEB 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.?)

Page 5: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

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

Page 6: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

6

Finding Discussions for 2nd Set (S5-S8)

• Comparing the Controls: S5 is essentially all shorted while S6 is nominally good aside from the 2 damaged devices. To note however the shorts are much higher resistances than from Set 1.

• S7 and S8 are all shorted but with R(W) < R(B) and R(W)<10Ω

Page 7: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

2nd Test Results - “Control 1” S5Device Capacitanc

e(pF)Resistance(Ω)

Type

1 -1 29.4 B2 -1 0.5 W3 9.38 3.7x106 B4 -1 24 W5 -1 24 B6 -1 7 W7 -1 421 B8 -1 17 W

Summary: W: 4/4 Shorted B: 3/4 ShortedR(W): (12 ± 10) ΩExcluding #3 R(B): (158± 230) ΩC(B,#3) – very low (9.38 pF) compared to 1st set but comparable to S6 (also a Control - next slide).

Page 8: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

“Control 2” S6Device Capacitanc

e(pF)Resistance(Ω)

Type

1 Damaged 9.7 4.6x106 W2 9.33 8.3x106 B3 Damaged 9.61 3.04x105 W4 9.4 1.05x107 B5 -1 142 W6 9.25 1.1x107 B7 -1 46 W8 10.3 1.2x104 B

Summary: W: 2/4 Shorted (2 Damaged by high voltage – 1V) B: 0/4 ShortedR(W): (94± 68) Ω; C(B): (9.6± 0.5) pF

Page 9: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

2.5 min SB S7Device Capacitanc

e(pF)Resistance(Ω)

Type

1 -1 13.4 W2 -1 428 B3 -1 10.8 W4 -1 294 B5 -1 3.7 W6 -1 5.7 B7 -1 4.1 W8 -1 11.6 B

Summary: All ShortedR(B): (185 ± 211) Ω; R(W): (8 ± 5) Ω

Page 10: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

5 min SB S8Device Capacitanc

e(pF)Resistance(Ω)

Type

1 -1 4.8 W2 -1 16 B3 -1 1.9 W4 -1 44 B5 -1 4.3 W6 -1 ? B7* 15.16 1.76? W8 15.25 0.57x106 B

Summary: W: 3/4 Shorted (why not 4/4?) B: 3/4 ShortedR(Blank): (30 ± 20) Ω (#8 excluded)R(Well): (3.7 ± 1.6) Ω (#7 excluded)7*: Re-measured (need to double check R)

Page 11: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

“Control 2” @ 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.

Page 12: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

“Control 2” 100x

Page 13: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

“Control1” 100x

Page 14: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

2.5min SB 100x

Page 15: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

5min SB 100x

Page 16: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

3rd Set of Test Samples • 2 samplesTest Parameters for S9-10:

– 1 min PEB @ 93°C and Vary SB time @ 60°C• S9: SB: 8 min• S10: SB: 12 min

Page 17: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

• 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)

Device Capacitance(pF)

Resistance(Ω)

Type

1 -1 W2 -1 B3 12 W4 19 B5 -1 W6 19 B7 19 W8 20 B

8 min - S9

Page 18: SU-8 Testing ( v1f)

12 min - S10Device Capacitanc

e(pF)Resistance(Ω)

Type

1 -1 4.5 W2 -1 18 B3 -1 6.7 W4 -1 121 B5 -1 3.9 W6 -1 127 B7 -1 5 W8 -1 118 B

Summary: W: 4/4 Shorted B: 4/4 Shorted Avg Well Resistance: 5.0± 1.2Ω

Avg Blank Resistance: 96± 52Ω Double Exposed (16s)