Precision Passive Alignment of Wafers

by

Alexis Christian Weber
B. S. Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (1998) Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Mexico Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the MASSACHUSSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY February, 2002
©

2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All Rights Reserved

Signature of Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Department of Mechanical Engineering February, 2002 Certified by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexander H. Slocum Professor, Mechanical Engineering Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ain A.Sonin Chairman, Mechanical Engineering Graduate Committee

2

Precision Passive Alignment of Wafers
by ALEXIS CHRISTIAN WEBER Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering on February 20, 2002 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering ABSTRACT Several macro-scale bench level experiments were carried out to evaluate the alignment repeatability that can be obtained through the elastic averaging principle. Based on these results, a precision passive alignment technique for wafer bonding application was developed. Wafer integral features that allow two stacked wafers to self-align were designed, fabricated and tested for wafer alignment repeatability and accuracy. Testing has demonstrated sub-micrometer repeatability and accuracy can be held using the proposed technique on 4 inch wafers. Passive alignment of the wafers is achieved when convex pyramids, supported on flexural cantlievers, and concave v-grooves patterned on the edges of the wafer engage and are preloaded. A silicon cantilever beam flexure between one of the wafers and the pyramid provides compliance to the coupling to avoid strain on the wafers and allows the surfaces of the wafers to mate. Both the concave coupling features and the convex coupling features are bulk micromachined through wet anisotropic etch (KOH). The convex features are then release etched through a back-side deep reactive ion etch (DRIE). As part of the fabrication process development, tests were performed to optimize the convex corner compensating mask structures needed to create the pyramid shaped convex coupling structures. Testing has shown that patterning two pairs of features on each of the four sides of the wafer is enough to achieve sub-micrometer repeatability.

Thesis Supervisor: Alexander H. Slocum Title: Professor of Mechanical Engineering

4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to thank foremost Prof. Slocum for his guidance throughout this research project, and for his continuous support throughout my time at MIT. His energy and passion for engineering, have made me grow academically, personally and professionally. To everybody at the Precision Engineering Research Group, I thank sincerely for their friendship and for the help they never hesitated in providing. I am honored to have shared lab space, interesting conversations and long hours of work with you. Thanks to the MTL staff and users for their continuous advice. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Vicky Diadiuk, Gwen Donahue, Kurt Broderick, Paul Garth, Paudley Zamora, Dennis Ward and Ravi Khanna for their guidance and help. During my time at MIT, I was generously sponsored by a fellowship from Delphi Automotive Systems. I am grateful to Mark Shost and the MTC staff, for believing in me. Thanks to Mark Shost for mentoring me throughout my graduate studies. I am grateful to Ivan Samalot, for having “pushed” me to come to MIT, as well as for his continuous, unconditional and unselfish support. Thanks to Albert Vega for helping me out with all the administrative issues. I am grateful to Enrique Calvillo for his help with the transition back to Mexico. I am most grateful to my parents, for their love and support: gracias por todo! Thanks to my father, for giving me the passion for engineering: unvregessen die Gespraeche vor dem Kindergarten! Thanks to my best friends: Andreas and Walter: que sigamos siendo tan unidos como hasta ahora. Thanks to my "favorite" aunt and uncle, Babs & Donald, for their continuous support. I am grateful to my Grandparents, who taught us hard work and love for the adventure and the unknown: Euer Leben wird uns immer ein Vorbild sein. A special thanks goes to Carissa, for the long hours working on problem sets, lab reports, and preparing for quizzes; thanks for the beautiful friendship, continuous support and for the shared dreams. 5

6

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

. . . . . . . .2 Flexural Kinematic Couplings . .1 Precision Machine Design Alignment Principles 3. . . .2. . . .2 Passive alignment in Optical MEMS . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . .1. . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 LIST OF F IGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Background . . . . . . . . . .1 Repeatability of a 2X4 Projection Lego™ block . . . .2 Flexural kinematic couplings 4. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Product values and goals . . . . . . 1. .4 Pinned joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Wafer alignment through optical systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . .2 Elastic Averaging Bench Level Experiment .2 Motivation . . CURRENT WAFER AND MEMS ALIGNMENT PRINCIPLES . 2. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2. . . . . . . 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . DESIGN OF A WAFER-LEVEL PASSIVE ALIGNMENT COUPLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Strategy selection . . . . CHAPTER 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .TABLE OF CONTENTS 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . .1 Kinematic couplings . . . . . MACRO-SCALE PRECISION ALIGNMENT . . . . .3 Design constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Concept selection . . 9 LIST OF T ABLES .3 Elastic averaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. .3 Elastic Averaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15 15 16 17 17 18 21 21 22 24 24 26 27 31 37 37 38 38 42 42 43 43 44 CHAPTER 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Repeatability and number of contact points . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Kinematic Couplings . . . . . . . . . 4. .2. . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . Appendix C. 47 4. . .8. . . . . . . . . . . 44 44 45 4. . . . . . 49 51 51 52 54 57 63 63 65 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Design parameters . . . . . . . . . . .1 Groove / pyramid layout on wafer . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental Results: CCCS . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . 6. CHAPTER 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Functional Requirements . . 5. . . . . . . Appendix D. . . 46 4. . . 71 73 77 81 85 89 Appendix A. . . . . . 5. . . . . . 4. . . .1 Fabrication processes . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . .2 Process optimization: Convex corner compensating structures . .8. . . . . . . . . . .3 Repeatability and accuracy results of passive wafer alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 CHAPTER 7. . . . . . CHAPTER 5. .7 Design layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Determination of the measurement system noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TESTING AND RESULTS 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Design detailing . . . . . . . . . . . 47 4. .4 Repeatability and accuracy as a function of number of contact points: the elastic averaging effect . . . . . . . 5. . . . Passive Wafer Alignment Test Data . . 5. . . . . .8 Manufacturing considerations .2 Concave coupling features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4. . . . .2 Principal etch planes of convex-cornered masked features in anisotropic etchants . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK . . . . . . . . . . .1 Concave coupling features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Masks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Testing sequence . 6. . . . . . MICROFABRICATION . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . Process Sequence Appendix B. . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26 Top view of 2x6 PP building block . .7 Figure 3. 29 Figure 3.16 Bottom and top view of the epoxied monolithic block used for the repetability vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slocum. . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3. . . . 31 Figure 3. . . . . . . . .8 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Measurement target for repeatability experiment of 2x4 PP Lego ™ block 28 Figure 3.944 [10]) Circle divider (figure by W. . . . . . . . Flexural kinematic coupling “Kinflex” (US patent 5. . . . . 27 27 Figure 3. . Foundations of mechanical accuracy[12]) . 23 23 24 Three-groove kinematic coupling assembled . . . . . . . Foundations of mechanical accuracy[12]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . .678. 26 Curvic coupling engaged (figure by W.12 Font view of gauge block used to measure the repetability of 2x4 Lego™ blocks . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Curvic coupling disengaged (figure by W. . . . . . . . . . . . . Bottom view of a 2x6 PP building block . . . . . R. Foundations of mechanical accuracy [12]) . . . . . . . . . . .17 Second bench level experiment using two 6x2 PP’s blocks (72 contact points) . . . .4 Figure 3. . . . . R. .9 Coupling arrangement to ensure stability (figure by A. . . . . . . . . . .2 Figure 3. . . . .18 Second bench level experiment using five 6x2 PP’s blocks (180 contact points) . . . . . . .15 Lego™ block position in 30 cycle assembly-disassembly sequence.13 Detail of flexures to hold capacitive probes and ejection pins to disassemble the blocks . . . . . . . . . .6 Figure 3. . . Moore. . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 3.10 Cross-section at the interface of two blocks showing three line contact of every primary projection with adjacent secondary projections . H. . . . . 32 Figure 3.14 Lego™ block with aluminum sheet used as a target for the capacitive probes 29 Figure 3. . . . . . . Design of three-groove kinematic couplings [9]) . . . . 23 Three-groove kinematic coupling disassembled . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Figure 3. . 33 33 Figure 3. . . Moore. . . . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Figure 3. . . .19 Experimental setup for the second bench level experiment . . . . first bench level experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. . number of contact points bench level experiment . . . . 29 Figure 3. Moore. . . . . . . . . .LIST OF FIGURES 9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3. . . . . . . .

. . . 46 46 Figure 4. Anisotropic wet etch and mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 5. . . . . 47 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Figure 4. .9 LIST OF FIGURES Structural loop of a milling machine .11 Silicon “pit” etched through wet anisotropic etch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Pyramid masked with CVD silicon-nitride. . . . Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The low residual stress film yields sharp edges and smooth sidewalls after the KOH etch . . . . . . after Zhang [25] . . . . .14 Detailed view of Mask M-1 with overlapped Masks M-2 and F-1 . . 54 Detail of CVD silicon-nitride masked pyramid after KOH etch. .12 Detail of CCS. .2 Figure 5. . . . . . . . .5 Figure 5. . . Identification of Product Values and Goals . . . Picture taken after nitride strip. . showing jagged edges and rough surface finish . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Detail of stochiometric silicon-nitride masked pyramid. . . . 55 Figure 5. Traces of the convex corner compensating structures can be seen on the lower corners of the pyramid . . . . . . .8 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Front view SEM image of the convex coupling feature after release (wafer 2) 55 SEM side view image of the convex coupling feature array (wafer 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Detailed view of the convex coupling array concept. . . . . (wafer 1). . . . . . . . . . 55 SEM side view image of the convex coupling feature array. . . . . . . . . . .13 Mask used to etch the pyramids . . . . . . . . .10 Figure 4. shown after nitride strip. .1 Figure 5. . . . . Coupling array distribution on 4 inch wafer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Figure 5. . . . . . (wafer 1) . . . . . . . Figure 4. . . . . . . . Isotropic wet etch and mask . . Concept Selection Chart . the thin film residual tress caused jagged edges and rough surface finish . . . . . . .15 Detailed view of Mask M-2 with overlapped Masks M-1 and F-1 . . . . . . . . . . . notice the array orientation is in <110> . . . . . . . .1 Figure 4. . . . . 38 38 39 40 41 41 Structural loop of a mechanical coupling . . . . . . . . . .3 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . notice the cantilevers and the KOH etched pyramids at the cantilever tips . .2 Figure 4. . . . . . Figure 4. .8 . . . . . . . . . . . using a concave cornered mask . . 54 Front view SEM image of the convex coupling feature. .10 Detail of coupling pair . .5 Figure 4. . . .7 Figure 4. . . . . 45 Detail of concave coupling (V-groove) on boss .3 48 48 50 50 50 Pyramid masked with stochiometric silicon-nitride. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4. . . . . . . . . .4 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . .16 Detail of Mask F-1 with overlapped Masks M-1 and M-2 . . . Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . die E3 . . . .10 Detail of boss and V-groove. . . . . . . . . .13 CCCS experiment mask . . CCCS optimization. . . . . . . . .11 Dimensions of the CCCS. . . CCCS optimization. . . . . . CCCS optimization. . .8 Figure C. . . . . . . . . . .3 Figure C. . . . die E2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Detailed view of passive wafer aligned stack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Figure C. 68 Detailed of V-groove damage after M-1 F-1 wafer testing. . . 82 83 84 85 85 86 86 86 86 87 87 87 87 Figure C. . . . . . . . . . . . . CCCS optimization. . . . . . .10 CCCS optimization. . . . . .3 Figure 6. . . . . . CCCS optimization I1 . .2 Figure B. . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 5. . . . . . . .1 Figure 6. . 64 Wafer chuck and top CCD objective. . . . . . . 64 Detail of V-groove damage after M-1 & F1 wafer testing . . . . . . . . die G2 . corner detail die G1 . . . . 68 Mask M-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Note the cantilevers and bottom wafer showing on the left side of the stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CCCS optimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mask F . . . . . showing rough surface finish on the boss and V-groove side-walls . . after Zhang [25] . . . .2 Figure 6. . . . . 56 Figure 5. . . .5 Figure C. . . . . die G3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Figure C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . die I2 . . . . . CCCS optimization. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Figure B. . . .6 Figure C. . . .1 Figure C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Figure C. . Electronics Vision TBM8 . . . . . . . . .4 Figure 6. . . . . . . . . . . .3 Figure C. . . . CCCS optimization. . . The measurement coordinate system is indicated . . . . . . . . . The shadowed area is the tapered sidewall of the V-groove . . . . . . . . . . . .9 SEM picture of concave feature boss and V-groove . . . . . . . Figure 5. . . . . . . . die G1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . die E1 . . . . . . . . . .5 Figure B. . . . . . die I3 . . . . . . . CCCS optimization. 57 59 59 Measurement set-up used to test the passive wafer alignment features. . . . . . . .9 . Mask M-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .LIST OF FIGURES 11 56 Figure 5. . . .12 CCCS dimensions for pyramid masking Figure 6. . . . . .

12 LIST OF FIGURES .

. preloaded . no preload besides top wafer mass. 56 cantilevers . . . . 30 34 35 48 49 58 59 60 65 66 67 69 78 79 90 91 TABLE D. no preload besides top wafer mass. . . . . no preload besides top wafer mass. . . . . . . 72 cantilevers . . . . . . . .1 . . . TABLE A.2 Test data Wafers M-2 & F-1. no preload besides top wafer mass . . . .1 CCCS dimensions for different etch depths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 TABLE D. . . . 92 TABLE D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1. . . . TABLE 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 CCCS sizing experiment results . . . . . . .3 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1. . . . . . . . 48 cantilevers . . . . . . . .2 Concaveand concave feature size targets . . no preload besides top wafer mass. applying equation 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Test results wafers M-1 & F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Test results wafers M-2 & F-2. no preload besides top wafer mass. . . . . . . . . . . . . no preload besides top wafer mass. TABLE D.2 Convex coupling process . . . . . . . . . TABLE 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . all cantilevers . . all cantilevers . . . TABLE 6. . . . . . . . .2 “Cap” test for second bench level experiment . . . . . . . . . . . .2 CCCS sizing experiment combinations . . . . . 96 cantilevers . . . . . no preload besides top wafer mass. . . . . . . . . . TABLE D. .9 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1. . no preload besides top wafer mass TABLE A. 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1. . . . . . . . . . . 80 cantilevers . . . . . . . wafers M-1 & F-1 preloaded . . . . . . . 94 TABLE D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LIST OF TABLES 13 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3. . . . . . .1 Repeatability of 2x4 PP Lego™ block . . .1 Cap Test data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 cantilevers . . . .8 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1. . . .1 Concave coupling process . . . . . . . . . . 93 TABLE D. . . . . . .1 Cap test results. . . . . . . . 92 TABLE D. . TABLE 6. TABLE 5. . . . . . . 64 cantilevers . . . . . . . . . .3 Repeatability results of second bench level experiment . . . . . . . . . . wafers M-1 & F-1. . . . . . . . . .2 Test results Wafers M-2 & F-1. TABLE 4. . . . . .6 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1. TABLE 6. . . . . . . . 93 TABLE D. . .1 CCCS dimensions for various etch depths. . . . . . TABLE 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 5. . TABLE 5. .4 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1. . . . .

. . . . . . no preload besides wafer mass. . . . . . . . . . . .13 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 cantilevers . . . 64 cantilevers . . 16 cantilevers . 72 cantilevers . . . . 97 TABLE D. . . . . . . . . . . . 24 cantilevers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 TABLE D. . . . . no preload besides wafer mass. . . . . . 48 cantilevers . . . . . . . . . 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. . . . . .18 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. . . . . 96 cantilevers . . . . . . 80 cantilevers . 95 TABLE D. . . . . . . . no preload besides wafer mass. .14 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no preload besides wafer mass. .20 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. . . . . . . . no preload besides wafer mass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 TABLE D. .16 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 TABLE D. . . . . . no preload besides wafer mass. . . . . . 56 cantilevers . . . 100 TABLE D. . . . . . . . . .19 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. . . . . . . . . . no preload besides wafer mass. . . . . no preload besides wafer mass. . . . . . . . . . no preload besides wafer mass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no preload besides wafer mass. .11 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. . . . . 8 cantilevers . . . . . . 88 cantilevers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. . . . . . 96 TABLE D. . . . . . . no preload besides wafer mass. . . . . . . . . . . . . no preload besides wafer mass.10 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 TABLE D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. . 98 TABLE D. . . 99 TABLE D. . 32 cantilevers . . . . 97 TABLE D. . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 LIST OF TABLES TABLE D. . . . .

Two major applications of wafer bonding in the MEMS field are fabrication and packaging. It is used extensively for the fabrication of Micro-Electro-Mechaincal-Systems (MEMS) and in the microelectronics industry. the design is often partitioned and wafer bonding is used to simplify the fabrication process of the whole device. Wafer bonding is a key process in the semiconductor industry. and to develop. investigate common precision alignment principles used in the macro-scale.Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The objective of this thesis is to review the current commercial wafer alignment technology. based on fundamental principles. Wafer bonding enables the fabrication of complex MEMS devices by stacking and bonding individually processed wafers to create complete assemblies. an alternative approach to wafer alignment using the principles of elastic averaging and exact constraint design. The manufacturing process used to create the alignment devices and the results obtained through testing are then presented. 15 . In the microelectronics industry. wafer bonding is used for CMOS chip scale packaging and 3-D chip and wafer level interconnects. Even if it is possible to make the complete device on a single wafer.

3-D interconnection of IC’s consists of face-to-face and face-to-back bonded die stacks. The current wafer alignment technology. thus alignment of the wafers to each other is critical during the bonding step. On some devices the cost associated with packaging can be higher then the device itself [1].2 Motivation In most cases. Unlike monolithic devices. such as plug and bridge types. must be evaluated in order to propose alternative solutions that could yield better alignment capability. . and offer the potential of reducing fabrication and performance limitation of planar IC’s [3]. wafer. strongly depends on the alignment accuracy that can be achieved during the bonding step. MEMS. and to prevent contamination. A significant part of the cost of any MEMS device is attributed to its packaging. This trend has made precision wafer alignment a “bottleneck” that hinders significant development in both the MEMS and microelectronics fields. 3-D interconnected IC’s can be packaged much smaller than monolithic devices. which significantly reduces the size of the electrical connections from the order of centimeters to the order of micrometers. both wafers to be bonded have features patterned or deposited on them. and hybrid levels. reduce damping. Certain types of bonds performed under vacuum can replace expensive ceramic packages [2]. such as accelerometers and gyroscopes are vacuum packaged to protect the moving parts. Wafer bonding can provide chip scale packaging of MEMS and integrated circuits (IC’s). Die shrink and complex multi-wafer devices are constrained by the alignment capability of the bonding process. The overall size and performance of the bonded device. 3-D interconnection can be performed on die. 1. The wiring is achieved through high aspect ratio vias.16 INTRODUCTION Some MEMS devices. chip-scale-packaged IC or 3-D interconnected IC. available through standard commercial equipment.

such as. Etching and deposition are time dependent processes. subject to minimal. and inter-substrate alignment. such as the deformation of the wafers once they have been pre loaded. Optical systems are used to locate the position of two wafers relative to each other by viewing alignment marks. thermal errors. infrared alignment. All major alignment techniques. but significant size variations. an actuation error. Once the alignment features on both wafers have been found. The alignment error of these systems can be attributed to five main sources: the alignment features themselves. transparent substrate alignment. y and θz of the unconstrained wafer to overlap the alignment features of the fully constrained wafer. The stage then lowers the wafers (varying z) onto each other until the wafer’s surfaces mate. a stage varies x. wafer backside alignment. Alignment features are etched or deposited on the wafer. etc.1 Wafer alignment through optical systems Wafer to wafer alignment is done using actuation stages and optical systems. a metrology error partly due to diffraction effects. an error introduced by the mechanism that brings the two wafers in contact (z translation). through-wafer via holes. The alignment capability of these processes can be evaluated analytically by performing an error budget analysis. and various other errors dependent on wafer material and bonding process. the wafers can be bonded.Chapter 2 CURRENT WAFER AND MEMS ALIGNMENT PRINCIPLES 2. follow the same sequence. Through wafer 17 . At this point.

highly concentrated potassium hydroxide . 2.7]. The v-grooves are bulk micromachined in silicon using wet anisotropic etchants. Error due to substrate deformation. y. The systematic stage error is strongly dependent on the length of the structural loop. In the case of infrared alignment. the travel can be in excess of 60 mm. These errors are bonding process and wafer material dependent and should be dealt with separately for each individual bonding application. θz encoded actuators and systematic errors. through-wafer via holes and back-side alignment.18 CURRENT WAFER AND MEMS ALIGNMENT PRINCIPLES via hole alignment is more subject to this source of error as a high aspect ratio feature is etched through the whole wafer. whereas. in the case of inter substrate alignment. and error due to material property mismatch is not included in the error budget of the aligner. In the case of wafer backside alignment. the travel is less then 50 µm. Optical fibers are preloaded against V-grooves by a surface micromachined flexure. The metrology error is process and wafer dependent. an additional source of error is introduced through patterning of the alignment marks on the back of the wafer. Choosing the smallest structural loop possible minimizes this error. Double-sided polished wafers are needed to “view” through both wafers. thermal error. The actuation stage introduces a random error due to the limited resolution of the x. In the case of infrared alignment.2 Passive alignment in Optical MEMS The principle of passive alignment has a huge application in the MEMS field and has been extensively applied to optical fiber alignment [5.6. The literature reports that sub-micron level alignment accuracy cannot be achieved with these systems [4]. the transparency of the silicon is dependent on the doping concentration and surface roughness of the wafer. such as.

. and thus expose the slower etching planes. These bases etch the silicon at different rates. the (111) planes are at 54.Passive alignment in Optical MEMS 19 (KOH). depending on the crystalline orientation. such as (111).7° from the wafer surface. tetramethylammoniumhydroxide (TmAH). this principle has not been applied for wafer-towafer alignment. and ethylenediaminepyrochatecol (EDP) solutions. It is interesting to note that in spite of the abundance of literature describing similar passive means of alignment for optical fibers. In the case of (100) oriented silicon.

20 CURRENT WAFER AND MEMS ALIGNMENT PRINCIPLES .

Chapter 3 MACRO-SCALE PRECISION ALIGNMENT 3. kinematic design and design for elastic averaging. Repeatability is defined as the degree to which a part will vary its original position over time as it is being assembled and disassembled continuously.1 Precision Machine Design Alignment Principles Whenever two solid bodies are positioned with respect to each other. Once the system's repeatability is acceptable. beyond that obtainable by simple pins and slots [8]. are capable of providing high repeatability in the location of solid bodies to each other. the quality of the alignment can be described in terms of the following two parameters: repeatability and accuracy. accuracy can be improved through adjustment and calibration. Accuracy is defined as the degree to which the part's position matches the desired position. These principles are used extensively by precision machine designers for the design of macro-scale systems. particularly in the MEMS and microelectronics fields. 21 . They may have an important application in wafer-to-wafer alignment of micro-scale systems. Two basic principles. however good repeatability does not ensure acceptable accuracy. Accuracy can only be achieved if the system's repeatability is good enough.

Ceramic kinematic couplings are not subject to fretting corrosion and can be used with little or no wear-in [9]. Alternatively. However.1µm has been reported with the use of heavily loaded steel ball and groove couplings. which requires wear-in and degrades the repeatability for high-cycle applications.2 show a three-groove kinematic coupling. Repetability of 0. its position can be determined in a closed form solution [8]. structural couplings. To ensure stability in a three-groove kinematic coupling.1 Kinematic Couplings Kinematic couplings are deterministically designed. The shape of the grooves depend on the number of contact points that are required between the groove and the convex feature. If six degrees of freedom are constrained. as is the case with a threegroove kinematic coupling. such that the normals to the planes created by the two contact points of each coupling. one convex feature can be constrained in three DOF (i.e a flat surface).3. the grooves must be arranged in a triangular fashion.1. a second convex feature in two DOF (using a regular V groove) and the last convex feature in one DOF (i. the stiffness of kinematic couplings is low compared to a surface-to-surface joint. Kinematic couplings make use of concave features that fit into grooves.e in a trihedral socket).1 and 3. In a deterministic system. Due to the low number of supports and high contact stresses. the number of contact points between two solid models matches the number of degrees of freedom which are restricted. the point loads required by a deterministic system may cause significant Herzian contact stress on the couplings which limits its application. The repeatability of a well-designed and preloaded ball and groove kinematic coupling is in the order of the surface finish of the grooves. static. Figures 3. intersect within the coupling triangle [9] as shown in Figure 3. As the body is exactly constrained.22 MACRO-SCALE PRECISION ALIGNMENT 3. . This material is subject to fretting corrosion. one can choose to constrain three convex features in two degrees of freedom (DOF) each.

H. Design of three-groove kinematic couplings [9]) .Precision Machine Design Alignment Principles 23 Figure 3.3 Coupling arrangement to ensure stability (figure by A.1 Three-groove kinematic coupling disassembled Figure 3.2 Three-groove kinematic coupling assembled Figure 3. Slocum.

3 Elastic Averaging Contrary to kinematic design. the elastic properties of the material allow for the size and position error of each individual contact feature to be averaged out over the sum of contact features throughout the solid body.4. The price paid is a low joint stiffness.24 MACRO-SCALE PRECISION ALIGNMENT 3. the flexures bend until the surfaces of both bodies come into contact. when the coupling is lightly preloaded.944 [10]) 3. such that. This is the idea behind the “Kinflex” design.2 Flexural Kinematic Couplings Kinematic couplings can provide very high repetability. The kinematic coupling is then fully pre-loaded and the rest of the load is taken by the mating surfaces. One way of increasing the joint stiffness and to allow the joined parts to mate while still achieving high repetability. it works as a regular kinematic coupling.1. Although the repetability is slightly lower than the one in regular kinematic couplings. This is a drawback if the two parts to be joined are intended to seal. As the preload is increased. As the system is preloaded. is to mount the kinematic coupling elements. Although the repeatability and accuracy obtained through elas- . either the concave features or the v-grooves. when compared to a surface-to-surface joint. the joint’s stiffness is increased significantly. on flexures. elastic averaging is based on significantly over-constraining the solid bodies with a large number of relatively compliant members. [10]. shown in Figure 3. Figure 3.4 Flexural kinematic coupling “Kinflex” (US patent 5.678.1. and the fact that the surfaces of the joined parts don’t mate.

7 shows the same face gears engaged. Moore. Figure 3. Hirth or curvic couplings. R. used in serrated tooth circle dividers. the repeatability is approximately inversely proportional to the square root of the number of contact points [11]. In a well designed and preloaded elastic averaging coupling. Foundations of mechanical accuracy [12] ) Figure 3.5 Circle divider (figure by W. The serrated tooth circle divider uses two mating face gears. thus requiring a smaller preload.Precision Machine Design Alignment Principles 25 tic averaging may not be as high as in deterministic systems. Furthermore these type of couplings often require a wear-in period to achieve very high repetability. shown in Figure 3. the teeth are lapped. This type of coupling relies on stiff elements and requires large preloads. the individual tooth size and position variations are averaged out over all the teeth. The principle of elastic averaging can also be applied to designs that use more compliant members. An example of an elastic averaged coupling based on low stiffness elements are Lego ™ blocks.5. thus providing good repeatability [12]. . As the two face gears are engaged and preloaded. are examples of elastically averaged couplings. elastic averaging design allows for higher stiffness and lower local stress when compared to kinematic couplings. Both are the same diameter and have equal tooth geometry and tooth size. Figure 3.6 shows a detailed view of the face gears disengaged.

Lego™ blocks are prismatic. a series of experiments were performed on Lego™ Duplo™ blocks to qualitatively evaluate the repeatability that can be obtained through this principle. R. Figures 3. Each projection engages in exactly three contact . R. plastic toy blocks provided with projection or bosses symmetrically distributed on the top and bottom faces of the blocks [13]. Moore.7 Curvic coupling engaged (figure by W. nevertheless. Moore.26 MACRO-SCALE PRECISION ALIGNMENT Figure 3. have a repeatability of less than 5 µm. Primary and secondary projections are arranged such that.6 Curvic coupling disengaged (figure by W. thin-walled. and may potentially play an important role in locating MEMS structures in a die or with respect to another MEMS device.9 show the top and bottom view of a 2x6 primary projection (PP’s) building block. when the blocks are placed on top of each other. To investigate this potential. when assembled and preloaded effectively. obtaining high repeatability [13. Tests showed that the particular toy blocks used in the experiment.2 Elastic Averaging Bench Level Experiment Elastic averaging can be used to accurately locate solid bodies.14].8 and 3. Foundations of mechanical accuracy[12]) 3. It is anticipated that the actual repeatability can be improved from the one reported by better controlling the preload. Foundations of mechanical accuracy[12] ) Figure 3. the primary projections of the bottom block engage with the secondary projections of the top block. The press-fit assembly design of Lego™ blocks makes use of the elastic averaging principle. the repeatability we measured is still quite impressive.

to keep both blocks fixed to each other [13].Elastic Averaging Bench Level Experiment 27 lines with its mating geometry [14]. Figure 3. The dimension and location of the projections allows for the blocks to be press fitted on to each other [13].10 Cross-section at the interface of two blocks showing three line contact of every primary projection with adjacent secondary projections 3.9 Bottom view of a 2x6 PP building block Figure 3. The slight interference fit between the engaged projections of different blocks creates the necessary frictional engagement.10. The experiment consisted of repeated assembly and disassembly of A and B type blocks. Type A (96mm x 32mm x 19mm in size) and Type B (about 64mm x 32mm x 19mm in . or holding force. as shown in Figure 3.8 Top view of 2x6 PP building block Figure 3.1 Repeatability of a 2X4 Projection Lego™ block A series of experiments was performed on Lego™ Duplo™ blocks to determine the repeatability that can be obtained through elastic averaging on ABS injection molded parts.2.

repeatability.28 MACRO-SCALE PRECISION ALIGNMENT size). Capacitive sensing was prefered because of its high resolution.13.12 and 3. The resolution of the measurement system use in this bench level experiment is 5 µm for the CMM and 0. Ejection pins were used to disassemble and assemble the blocks in order to avoid contacting the capacitive probe during assembly and disassembly. The shorter block (Type B) has 8 primary and 3 secondary projections. The main requirements of the gauge block were high precision and low distortion. Making the complete block one solid piece and directly probing the Lego™ block faces. Four 3 mm bores were placed into the bottom block to give clear- .11 Measurement target for repeatability experiment of 2x4 PP Lego ™ block In a first set-up. Type A block has 12 primary and 5 secondary projections. The position (sides and top face) of each block was recorded through every cycle. The same experiment was repeated using capacitive probes. The block consists of a central pocket to which the bottom building block has been epoxied. was designed to mount the capacitive probes and constrain the bottom Lego™ block. The design was chosen to provide a tight structural loop. minimized the Abbe error.11. and accuracy (linearity) [15]. This set-up was needed because of the limited measuring range and the reduced clearance between the blocks and the capacitive probes. Figure 3.05 µm for the capacitive probes. A gauge block. the data was taken with a CMM. shown in Figures 3. as shown in Figure 3. Capacitive probes are mounted on flexures on two faces orthogonal to each other.

In the second and third set-up.14. it is assumed that it does not have a significant effect on the overall repeatability results.13 Detail of flexures to hold capacitive probes and ejection pins to disassemble the blocks Capacitive sensing needs a conductive surface as a target.12 Font view of gauge block used to measure the repetability of 2x4 Lego™ blocks Figure 3. A routine was used to probe the block’s position with the CMM in the first set up. Figure 3. so a 25 µm thick aluminum sheet was glued to each block as shown in Figure 3. Although the bores slightly reduce the bottom block's stiffness. the output signal of the capacitive probes was connected to Labview™ software through a data acquisition card and recorded for every assembly-disas- . Figure 3.14 Lego™ block with aluminum sheet used as a target for the capacitive probes The same experiment was repeated using chrome plated Lego™ blocks to eliminate the error introduced at the shim-block interface.Elastic Averaging Bench Level Experiment 29 ance to the ejection pins.

5 By [µm] 5 4.2. repeatability taken with capacitive probes on the chrome-plated blocks after 30 cycles 4. 30 cycle experiment. This was confirmed by seeing a “growing trend” on the read-out of the probes over time. The data presented was taken from a short.4 Bz [µm] 5.5 Ty [µm] 20 27. Nomenclature after Figure 3.4 TABLE 3.3 N/A Capacitive Using chrome plated blocks 1. For the results presented herein.30 MACRO-SCALE PRECISION ALIGNMENT sembly cycle. Creep and thermal stress caused the readings to drift for abut two minutes. Some authors define repetability as half the range. repetability is defined as the range of all data after eliminating outlier values 2. Resolution of the CMM is 5µm.4 1. as seen on the plot in Figure 3. Repeatability results taken with CMM after 50 cycles. The cause of non-zero repetability of the bottom block is attributed to block deformation caused by the assembly and disassembly loads.11 .3 N/A Tz [µm] 20.8 3.1.5 N/A N/A A “cap” test with the chrome plated blocks showed that noise in the measurement system accounts for sub-micron (10-7 m) error. The results of this experiment are presented in Table 3.05µm 3.15. Some witness marks could be seen in the contact lines of the top block’s secondary projections after the experiment had been repeated several dozen load-unload cycles. The outlier measurements (maximum and minimum values) were dropped.7 Tx [µm] 19 14.1 Repeatability of 2x4 PP Lego™ block Experiment CMM Capacitive Using bonded sheet target Bx [µm] 5 4. repeatability results taken with capacitive probes and bonded sheet target after 30 cycles. 1. The output signals were normalized to the first read-out in order to eliminate any signal offset. resolution of the capacitive probes is 0.3. The block’s position was recorded once the readings had stabilized. The repetability was calculated as the range of the remaining data1.2 4. as well as to thermal induced stress.

15 Lego™ block position in 30 cycle assembly-disassembly sequence. In spite of this discrepancy. and it is believed that since the assembly force was not carefully controlled during the experiment. causing the unexpected results. . 3. the top block did not fully sit on the bottom block during some of the assembly cycles.5 times more elements in the y direction than in the x direction. The block’s aspect ratio would cause a larger abbe error in the y direction than in the x direction.Elastic Averaging Bench Level Experiment 31 Figure 3. The top block has 2. the repetability values obtained are quite impressive for these simple toy blocks.2. This however was not the case.2 Repeatability and number of contact points A second bench level experiment was designed to evaluate the relationship between the number of contact points and the repeatability of an elastically averaged coupling. and repetability is inversely proportional to the square root of contact points. first bench level experiment It was expected that the top blocks repetability in the y direction (Ty) would be better than in the x direction (Tx).

which serves as a reference plane for X and Y measurements and a base with three press-fitted V-groove inserts. These target blocks were interconnected through a conductive shim embedded in the epoxied block. which had previously been chrome plated.19. were used as targets for the capacitive probes.2.16. was kinematically coupled to the base fixture via three canoe ball type couplings. Figure 3. Six Lego™ blocks.32 MACRO-SCALE PRECISION ALIGNMENT The sequence described in section 3. as shown in Figure 3. Two to five 2x6 PP’s blocks were placed between two large monolithic blocks as shown in Figures 3. to create a relatively stiff monolithic block with 72 PP’s.17 and 3. were epoxied between two Lego™ plates.16 Bottom and top view of the epoxied monolithic block used for the repetability vs. but with a set-up that allowed the number of engaged primary and secondary projections to be varied. size 12x6 PP’s. This modified the number of contact points between the blocks from 72 to 180. The base fixture consists of two main parts: a square block. and a . size 2x6 PP’s. as shown in Figure 3.18. which in turn.1 was followed. One of the monolithic blocks was epoxied to a moving base. number of contact points bench level experiment Three of the 2x6 PP Lego™ blocks.

The capacitive probes are less than 1 mm away from the chrome . as shown in Figure 3. is used to allow remote assembly and disassembly the monolithic blocks. without coming in contact with the capacitive probes.Elastic Averaging Bench Level Experiment 33 Figure 3. The block constrains four capacitive probes using flexures.19 Experimental setup for the second bench level experiment A two piece. Figure 3.19. kinematically coupled fixture.18 Second bench level experiment using five 6x2 PP’s blocks (180 contact points) pocket for a permanent magnet used to increase the kinematic couplings preload.17 Second bench level experiment using two 6x2 PP’s blocks (72 contact points) Figure 3.

85 Thermal gradients as low as 0. The top fixture can be tilted away from the capacitive probes to a safe distance for block assembly and disassembly. The repeatability of the kinematically coupled setup and the system’s noise was determined through a cap test which consisted of repeated assembly and disassembly of the fixtures without disassembling the monolithic blocks.52 Tx 0. The results of a 25 cycle run with 2. the results of this test are presented in Table 3.2. and any physical contact with the probe while running the experiment causes drift in the read-out values. . Canoe ball kinematic couplings have been shown to provide sub micron repeatability when subject to heavy pre-loads.23 Ty 0.34 MACRO-SCALE PRECISION ALIGNMENT plated Lego™ blocks. The preload for the kinematic couplings in the bench level experiment is provided by the mass of the top fixture and two permanent magnets fixed to the top and bottom fixture. The kinematic coupling allows the moving plate to return to the original position relative to the fixture base with very high repetability. both repeatability and standard deviation improve as the number of contact points is increased.2 “Cap” test for second bench level experiment Repetability [µm] Bx 0. Error theory predicts that the repeatability of an elastically averaged coupling is inversely proportional to the number of contact points.56 By 0.3 As expected. The cap test proved sub-micron repetability. the experimental results clearly show this trend qualitatively. Although this is not reflected quantitatively.5°C cause deformations in the aluminum fixture that exceed the repetability of the blocks. TABLE 3. To avoid noise due to this source the whole system was placed in an insulating chamber and the position was recorded after the signal from the capacitive probes had stabilized.4. and 5 2x3 PP’s blocks between the large monolithic blocks are presented in Table 3.

737 1.805 Y [µm] 10.759 1. dev 2.95 6.23 3.271 0.Elastic Averaging Bench Level Experiment 35 TABLE 3.484 1.021 .59 X Stand.47 2.768 Y Stand.3 Repeatability results of second bench level experiment Experiment 2 blocks 72 contact points 4 blocks 144 contact points 5 blocks 180 contact points X [µm] 8.15 5. dev 2.

36 MACRO-SCALE PRECISION ALIGNMENT .

An alternative practice for wafer alignment was developed based on the macro-scale principles presented in Chapter 3.y.2. Machines with short and symmetric structural loops are usually stiffer and have better repetability then machines with large. when they are stacked onto each other and preloaded. This Value Engineering tool aids in identifying the functional require1. Mechanical couplings use partintegral features to align two solid bodies to each other. This same principle is used in series-type machine tools. Figure 4.1 Product values and goals Most “active” wafer aligners use stacked precision stages (x. that enable the wafers to “self-align”.3 shows the incremental identification of product values and goals of a waferbonder aligner1. Passive wafer alignment is achieved through wafer-integral features. plain text are the designer options or strategies 37 .1 shows the structural loop of a milling machine. as shown in Figure 4. A mechanical coupling creates the shortest possible structural loop between two solid bodies. Structural loops are a good indicator of a machine’s stiffness and repetability. unsymmetrical machine loops.Chapter 4 DESIGN OF A WAFER-LEVEL PASSIVE ALIGNMENT COUPLING 4.z.θz) to create a four degree-of-freedom (DOF) mechanism that orients two wafers to each other. Functional features are squared in. Figure 4.

2.2. 4. several passive alignment design strategies are proposed and evaluated.4 presents a summary of the initial design strategies.2 Strategy selection Applying the principles presented in Chapter 3. Figure 4. As these bases have crystalline-plane dependent etch-rates. 4. High concentration KOH and TaMH solutions are used extensively to etch v-grooves into (100) and (110) silicon.1 Kinematic couplings Kinematic couplings can achieve the highest repeatability of the alignment principles presented in Chapter 3.1 through 4.38 DESIGN OF A WAFER-LEVEL PASSIVE ALIGNMENT COUPLING Figure 4. it is .1 machine Structural loop of a milling Figure 4. including the major risks of each strategy.2. and a few suggested counter-measures. Microfabrication of both concave and convex kinematic coupling features is not a trivial task.4. A detailed analysis of each strategy is presented in Sections 4. generating concepts and focusing the design efforts at the right level [16].2 coupling Structural loop of a mechanical ments at different levels.

3 Identification of Product Values and Goals impossible to etch a triangular V-groove arrangement.3.2 . One concept that can be used to create convex flexures or “balls” is to make them out of photoresist using a technique by which spherical convex lenses are made [17].and isotropic-etches respectively. obtained from a mask with concave corners.6 show the profiles of anisotropic.8. such as the one shown in Figure 3. In this technique.and parabolic-sectioned grooves can be fabricated through isotropic etching for any mask orientation. Surface tension and cohesion form a 1. V-grooves of the same geometry can only be wet anisotropically etched perpendicular to each other. and the masks used to create these features. is a rectangular pit inscribing the mask geometry and oriented in <110>.Strategy selection 39 Figure 4.5 and 4. For further discussion see Section 4.1 Circular. regardless of mask orientation or shape. a drop of photoresist is placed on a pedestal. Figures 4. The resulting geometry of a long wet anisotropic etch.

4 Concept Selection Chart .40 DESIGN OF A WAFER-LEVEL PASSIVE ALIGNMENT COUPLING Figure 4.

6 Isotropic wet etch and mask convex feature which is then hardened by exposing the photoresist to UV light. However electro-deposited materials (i. as it .5 Anisotropic wet etch and mask Figure 4.e. back-to-back design. A nearly-kinematic. are not tight enough for a kinematic coupling application. can be fabricated by placing an optical fiber between two isotropically-etched wafers. furthermore. This design requires an assembly step. is the inherent gap that exists between the surfaces of the wafers.Strategy selection 41 Figure 4. The tolerances reported however. By far the major disadvantage of applying the principle of kinematic couplings for a wafer bonding application. Isotropic electro-deposition also creates convex structures [18]. including photoresist. Sodium diffusion from the optical fiber into the silicon wafer and thermal mismatch are the main risks associated with this strategy. nickel) have high diffusion rates and are therefore generally not CMOS compatible. wafer bonding is not compatible with any organic material.

and mounting either the “ball” or the “groove” on flexures. 4. elastic averaging offers acceptable repetability and the advantage of a high interface stiffness. as is the case in a Hirth / Curvic coupling. can be used to align two wafers back-to-back. High aspect ratio. Wafer-level flexural kinematic couplings can be fabricated by using the same techniques proposed for patterning the kinematic couplings on a wafer (section 4. this can be overcome by using a flexural kinematic coupling. just like a Hirth or Curvic coupling. The first elastic averaging design strategy is based on the use of stiff features. The second elastic averaging design strategy is based on compliant features and KOH etched pyramids.1.3 Elastic averaging Although not as repeatable as kinematic couplings and flexural kinematic couplings. Three main design strategies for elastically averaged wafer-couplings are evaluated. This eliminates the gap present in kinematic couplings. placed on the outer diameter of the wafers. Additionally. which is a key requirement for any bonding process. compliant structures made out of photoresist (SU8) could add the compliance needed to mate the wafer surfaces without causing excessive . The crystalline plane orientation dependent etch-rate was explained in Sections 2. The same limitations and process restrictions named for the various kinematic coupling designs apply to the flexural kinematic coupling design.42 DESIGN OF A WAFER-LEVEL PASSIVE ALIGNMENT COUPLING prevents the wafers from being bonded.2. that the parts being aligned mate.2. the design can be such.3 and 4.2 Flexural kinematic couplings Flexural kinematic couplings offer good repeatability.2. the surfaces of the two parts being aligned mate. however. The only difference to a Hirth coupling is that the pyramids and grooves are all oriented along <100> and not radially.2. Arrays of KOH etched pyramids and grooves. When fully preloaded.1). 4.

wafer alignment is a sub-process of wafer bonding. a low melting temperature material were to be used for the wafer-integral alignment features. If for example. no further processing at temperatures above this threshold could be performed. Both the alignment principle and the fabrication process of the wafer-integral features must be compatible with wafer bonding processes. must maintain the thermal budget of the device. Based on macro alignment experience this strategy is not likely to provide sub-micron repeatability. but adds compliance to the coupling by mounting either the pyramids or the grooves on flexures. 4.2.The process used to create the alignment features must be CMOS and microelectronicprocess compatible. The third elastic averaging strategy uses KOH etched pyramids and grooves like the stiff elastic averaging design. . is one out of many processes used to fabricate a complete MEMS / IC device.4 Pinned joints This design strategy is based on etching high aspect ratio vias into the wafers and orienting the wafers using silicon or glass pins. . Wafer bonding.Design constraints 43 deformation on the wafers.The materials and processes used in fabricating the wafer integral features. . This design is not feasible due to the incompatibility of the photoresist with the bonding process.After alignment the wafers must be bondable. in turn.3 Design constraints As illustrated in Figure 4. 4. This process dependence constrains the design of the alignment features and their fabrication process to the following: .3.

elastic averaging using anisotropically etched pyramids and grooves mounted on flexures is selected as the most feasible strategy. 4.5 Functional Requirements Functional requirements are the minimum set of independent requirements that completely characterize the design goals [22]. i. The silicon on insulator (SOI) design is ruled out because of excessive cost. All designs using organic materials as mechanical elements.e. The stiff-elastic averaging couplings designs are ruled out due to excessive coupling stiffness.3 rule out the proposed kinematic coupling design concepts.4 Concept selection The design constraints stated in section 4. due to the inherent gap between the two wafers being aligned. eliminating any gaps so the wafers can be bonded 4.01 . which would cause significant wafer strain. The wafer-level passive alignment design functional requirements are: . are ruled out due to material incompatibility with the bonding process. there is a unique relationship between each one of the design parameters and their . The use of materials other than silicon is discouraged due to thermal mismatch and risk of diffusion. Based on process feasibility and the restrictions imposed by the system.6 Design parameters Design parameters are the means by which the functional requirements are fulfilled [23].Coupling stiffness / wafer stiffness << 0. photoresist. functional requirements are assigned an acceptable tolerance that must be satisfied by the design proposal. Unlike constraints. Ideally.Sub-micron repetability .Mating of wafer surfaces after applying preload.44 DESIGN OF A WAFER-LEVEL PASSIVE ALIGNMENT COUPLING 4. which are a set of non-quantified restrictions.

8 Detailed view of the convex coupling array concept. This way.7.7 Coupling array distribution on 4 inch wafer.7 Design layout The strategy selected relies on anisotropically-etched coupling features mounted on flexures. In the case of the elastic averaging wafer-alignment design the deign parameters are: . as shown in Figure 4.8. The coupling features are patterned in arrays orthogonal to each other along the wafer outer diameter.Out of plane element stiffness . the design is de-coupled and the individual parameters can be varied arbitrarily to fulfill their corresponding functional requirement without significantly affecting other functional requirements.Number of contact points 4. comprises of a KOH etched pyramid mounted on the tip of a silicon cantilever . notice the cantilevers and the KOH etched pyramids at the cantilever tips ure 4. The convex coupling feature. notice the array orientation is in <110> Figure 4.In plane element stiffness . shown in Fig- Figure 4.Design layout 45 corresponding functional requirement.

5 list the major manufacturing considerations taken. the cantilevers bend until the deflection at the tip is the height of the concave feature boss.10 Detail of coupling pair mids at the tip of the cantilevers.8. Figure 4. slide into the grooves of the convex-coupling features..9 Detail of concave coupling (V-groove) on boss Figure 4.1 through 4.8 Manufacturing considerations The design is constrained by the limitations and requirements of the various process steps needed to make the devices. The only force acting parallel to the cantilever is the friction between the pyramid and the V-groove.When the wafers are stacked onto each other and preloaded. the pyra- Figure 4.10 shows a detailed view of the engagement of one coupling pair. By further preloading wafers. 4. Any additional vertical load on the wafers is taken up by the surface of the wafers. shown in Figure 4. The cantilever deflection stops when the surfaces of both wafers have touched.9 consists of KOH etched Vgrooves on a boss.46 DESIGN OF A WAFER-LEVEL PASSIVE ALIGNMENT COUPLING beam. self-aligning the wafers. The concave coupling feature. Sections 4.8. . The cantilever tips are free to slide along the length of the groove.

so the “pyramids” and “grooves” can only be created normal or parallel to each other.7. In the tetrahedral crystalline structure of silicon. and (100) at the bottom.Manufacturing considerations 47 4. TaMH and EDP have faster etch rates in certain crystallographic planes then others.1 Groove / pyramid layout on wafer As described in Section 4. strong bases such as KOH. This leads to the array layout shown in Figure 4.2 Principal etch planes of convex-cornered masked features in anisotropic etchants Long anisotropically-etched features in (100) silicon. using a concave cornered mask Long anisotropically-etched features in (100) silicon wafers. {111} planes etch significantly slower then {100} and {110} planes. 4.1. The pit orientation is in <110> direction.11 Silicon “pit” etched through wet anisotropic etch.2. as shown in Figure 4. regardless of its orientation or shape. Figure 4. made from a concave-cornered mask result in “pits” defined by (111) on the sides.8.11. made from convex-cornered masks. result in “islands” with strong bevelling of the corners due to fast etch rates along . The (111) planes frame the mask.8. In the case of Silicon. {111} planes are orthogonal to each other.

. Convex corner compensating structures (CCCS) are added to the mask in order to prevent bevelling of the structure’s corners [23]-[25]. Applying the CCCS on all four corners of the mask. etching away the “island” structure.1 shows the mask’s dimensions for different etch-depths.13. The size of the CCCS sets the minimum spacing permissible between the convex structures. shown in Figure 4. corner bevelling. The equations used to calculate the size of the CCCS.2. can completely undercut the mask.48 DESIGN OF A WAFER-LEVEL PASSIVE ALIGNMENT COUPLING [410] and [411]. Figure 4. after Zhang [25] Figure 4. results in the geometry shown in Figure 4.1 CCCS dimensions for different etch depths Etch depth M [µm] B [µm] a [µm] b [µm] 300 µm 442 758 536 978 350 µm 512 885 625 1137 400 µm 582 1011 715 1297 . Table 4. Zhang [25] proposes a compact CCCS. as well as additional manufacturing considerations are presented in Section 5.12. For deep etches.13 Mask used to etch the pyramids TABLE 4.12 Detail of CCS.

show a full view of masks M-1 through F-1. and to keep the wafer distortion at a low level. Figures B-1 through B-3.2 Concaveand concave feature size targets Feature Pit length Pit width Pit distance from wafer center line (inner edge) Cantilever length Cantilever width Cantilever thickness Pyramid size top Pyramid size base CCCS outer rectangle V-groove width V-groove length Mask Mask M-1 Mask M-1 Mask M-1 Mask M-1 and Mask M-2 Mask M-2 Mask M-2 Mask M-1 Mask M-1 Mask M-1 Mask F-1 Mask F-1 Size [µm] 7000 26000 7500 5260 1400 200-250 1072 1450 2000 1142 1900 .9 Design detailing In a first order estimate. the other masks are shown in the background on each figure as well.Design detailing 49 4.14 through 5. in Appendix B. This low strain value is chosen to prevent material failure due to stress concentration at the {111}-{100} interfaces. As a reference. The flexure is modeled as a cantilever beam with an unconstrained end. Table 5.16 show a detailed view of the arrays for masks M-1. when bent out of the wafer plane.4 summarizes the critical cantilever and v-groove dimensions chosen to fulfill the various functional requirements and restrictions. with a cantilever tip deflection of 150 µm.2% strain. TABLE 4. M-2 and F-1 respectively. the coupling can be modeled using basic beam bending equations. The cantilevers are designed to have a maximum of 0. Figures 5.

14 Detailed view of Mask M-1 with overlapped Masks M-2 and F-1 Figure 4.15 Detailed view of Mask M-2 with overlapped Masks M-1 and F-1 Figure 4.16 Detail of Mask F-1 with overlapped Masks M-1 and M-2 .50 DESIGN OF A WAFER-LEVEL PASSIVE ALIGNMENT COUPLING Figure 4.

Deep Reactive Ion Etch (DRIE). Four inch.Chapter 5 MICROFABRICATION 5.1 and 5. was used to release the cantilever flexures. 51 . such as photolitography. Common microelctronics processes.1 Fabrication processes The fabrication and testing of the wafer passive alignment features was done at the Microelectronics Technology Lab (MTL) at MIT.1. (100) wafers were used for both convex and concave features. Sections 5. The masks are shown in Appendix B. The shallow plasma etches were masked with thin (1µm) photoresist. plasma etching and wet anisotropic etching were used to create the passive alignment features. The deep wet anisotropic etches were masked with a patterned 2000Å thin silicon nitride film. double sided polished. A detailed process flow for both convex and concave features. a variant of the reactive ion etch process.2 discuss the micro-fabrication process of the convex and concave coupling features respectively. is given in Appendix A.1. capable of achieving very high aspect ratio and directional etches. Thick (10 µm) photoresist was used to mask the DRIE step. thin film deposition.

Any etch after puncture of the wafer. double side polished. . The halo mask was snapped off before testing. would expose the unprotected wafer back side. Thick (10 µm) photoresist was spun and patterned (Mask M-2) on the wafer front side. The device wafer was then mounted on a 4-inch handle wafer using thick photoresist. thus. The nitride was patterned on the wafer back side (Mask M-1) with a CF4 plasma etch. These alignment marks were later used to quantify the repeatability and accuracy of the passive wafer alignment. After striping the photoresist and preparing the wafers for deposition with an RCA clean.52 MICROFABRICATION 5.1. a piece of punctured die saw tape was placed between the vacuum chuck and the wafer. The wafer stack was etched in DRIE until the device cantilevers had been released. the wafers were etched in a 20% weight KOH solution in de-ionized (DI) water at 85°C. The etch rate of silicon in DRIE is strongly dependant on the aspect ratio of the etch. (100) silicon wafers. so all cantilevers would be released simultaniously.1 Concave coupling features Alignment marks (Mask A) were plasma etched (HCl & HBr recipe) on the front side of 4 inch. causing damage to the pyramids. The wafers were demounted using acetone and put in the asher to burn off any photoresist traces and the teflon deposited by the DRIE process during the passivation cycles. After striping the photoresist mask. The tape directed the vacuum to the center of the wafer. 2000Å of silicon nitride were deposited through low pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD). The back side of the wafers are not protected with photoresist. A halo mask was used in Mask M-2 to maintain the etch line-width constant throughout the wafer. It was critical for the fabrication of the convex alignment features. This created the pits defining the cantilever height and the pyramids. a wider trench will etch faster then a narrow one. to maintain the DRIE etch-rate constant over the whole wafer. For the front-side spin casting. A post KOH clean and nitride strip followed. away from the KOH etched pits.

Figures 5. and that the surface finish of the pyramid faces is very rough. Plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PCVD) silicon nitride is deposited at a lower temperature. due to plasma nun-uniformity and slightly faster etch rate on the wafer outside diameter then in the center of the wafer. that the constant mask change caused the pyramid edges to become jagged and the pyramid faces to become rough. The high residual stress of the stochiometric silicon-nitride. It was assumed. the thin film residual tress caused jagged edges and rough surface finish Figure 5.1 and 5.Fabrication processes 53 A slight over-etch. Note that the {100}{111} interface is very jagged. PCVD silicon nitride was used to mask the KOH etch. Initially. caused the nitride mask to brake off as the convex compensating structures were being underetched.1 Pyramid masked with stochiometric silicon-nitride. however.3 and 5.2 show optical microscope pictures of the pyramids masked with stochiometric nitride. Figures 5. and thus has significantly lower residual stress then stochiometric silicon nitride.2 Detail of stochiometric siliconnitride masked pyramid. showing jagged edges and rough surface finish surface-finish of the pyramid walls. the higher density silicon nitride would provide a better mask for the KOH etch.4 show optical microscope images . (approximately 30 µm deep) was needed to fully release all cantilevers. It is assumed. stochiometric silicon nitride was deposited on the wafers to mask the KOH etch. eliminating the rough Figure 5.

shown after nitride strip. The silicon nitride was patterned on the wafer front side (Mask F-1) with a CF4 plasma etch.6 show SEM pictures of the convex alignment features after release and removal of the halo-mask. The low residual stress film yields sharp edges and smooth sidewalls after the KOH etch Figure 5. In a second run. These are traces of the corner compensating structures.2 Concave coupling features Alignment marks (Mask A) were plasma etched (HCl & HBr recipe) on the back side of 4 inch. Figure 5. Picture taken after nitride strip.1.54 MICROFABRICATION of the pyramids masked with PCVD silicon nitride. double side polished. Notice the pyramid definition and significantly better surface finish. After striping the photoresist and preparing the wafers for deposition with an RCA clean. Notice the presence of small corner structures. Figures 5.5 and 5. 5. After striping the pho- . which were under-etched. (100) silicon wafers. .4 Detail of CVD silicon-nitride masked pyramid after KOH etch.3 Pyramid masked with CVD siliconnitride. These alignment marks were later used to quantify the repeatability and accuracy of the passive wafer alignment. Figures 5.8 show SEM pictures of the second run structures after removal of the halo mask. the wafers were over-etched to eliminate these corner structures.7 and 5. 2000Å of silicon nitride were deposited through LPCVD.

(wafer 1). (wafer 1) Figure 5. Traces of the convex corner compensating structures can be seen on the lower corners of the pyramid Figure 5.Fabrication processes 55 Figure 5.7 Front view SEM image of the convex coupling feature after release (wafer 2) Figure 5.8 SEM side view image of the convex coupling feature array (wafer 2) .6 SEM side view image of the convex coupling feature array.5 Front view SEM image of the convex coupling feature.

56 MICROFABRICATION toresist mask.9 SEM picture of concave feature boss and V-groove Figure 5. by cutting off the wafer edges. showing rough surface finish on the boss and V-groove side-walls . The under-etched spots leave unwanted “island” structures after the KOH etch. These brackets cause a shadow effect keeping the silicon-nitride underneath the bracket from being etched. Note that since stoichiometric nitride was used to mask the KOH etch. These structures keep the convex and the concave coupling features from fully engaging when the wafers are stacked. A post KOH clean and silicon nitride strip followed.10 show SEM pictures of the convex wafer alignment features. and were therefore removed with the diesaw.9 and 5. Figure 5. The plasma etcher uses brackets that hold the wafer in place.10 Detail of boss and V-groove. The etch exposed the concave feature boss and V-grooves. Figures 5. the pyramid walls are rough and the edges jagged. the wafers were etched 150 µm deep in a 20% weight KOH solution at 85°C.

in order to compensate for bevelling at convex corners. etch rates and anisotropy ratio.D e = 0. after Zhang [25] . There are however no equations that predict the exact etch rates and anisotropy of a wet anisotropic etches as a function of temperature and solution concentration [26].4g + 0. An experiment was run to optimize the size of the CCCS for the KOH solution (concentration and temperature) used at MTL.2 Process optimization: Convex corner compensating structures Many techniques have been proposed to add material to the masks of wet anisotropic etches. Zhang [25] proposes the following relatioships to mask the convex corners: V < 411 > ------------------.424B – 0. Zhang [25] proposes a particularly small convex corner compensating structure (CCCS) and gives equations to size these structures according to the depth of the etch. V <100> is the etch rate in <100>. i.1 V < 100 > where V <410> is the etch rate in <410>. M.Process optimization: Convex corner compensating structures 57 5.4( M + g) ) 5. as shown in Figure 5.11 Dimensions of the CCCS. and g are the dimensions which define the geometry of the CCCS. Figure 5. [23]-[25]. and B. De is the etch depth.11.857 ( 0.e.

50% weight concentration. applying equation 5.3 to 1. The dimensions labeled as “nominal” were calculated using equation 5. The dimensions labeled as “110% size” and “90% size” were scaled 10% larger.1 Group Nominal dimensions Dimension M [µm] B[µm] a[µm] b[µm] CL width [µm] 300 µm 442 758 536 978 1975 350 µm 512 885 625 1137 2294 400 µm 582 1011 715 1297 2614 M [µm] B[µm] a[µm] b[µm] CL width [µm] M [µm] B[µm] a[µm] b[µm] CL width [µm] 486 834 590 1075 2127 397 682 483 880 1780 563 973 688 1251 2522 461 796 563 1024 2067 640 1112 786 1427 2873 524 910 643 1167 2354 90% size 110% size .1. is KOH concentration dependent. and 10% smaller in size respectively. The gap between masks g is constrained by the minimum feature size the mask is capable of reproducing. Table 5. and ranges from 1.1 for different etch depths.12.4 is assumed for the 20% weight KOH solution used.6 for 15 .58 MICROFABRICATION V <410> /V <100>. In the case of Masks M-1.1 CCCS dimensions for various etch depths. The dimensions are defined in Figure 5. TABLE 5. An anisotropy ratio of 1. M-2 and F the minimum feature size is 20 µm. These masks are made by a photolitography step using a high quality transparency print.1 presents the CCCS dimensions determined from equation 5. the anisotropy ratio.

The width of the pyramid corner bevelling for each combination was measured with a microscope.13.∆T C1 C2 C3 350 µm D1 D2 D3 350 µm + ∆T E1 E2 E3 350 µm . Figure 5.1.13 CCCS experiment mask TABLE 5.∆T F1 F2 F3 400 µm G1 G2 G3 400 µm + ∆T H1 H1 H1 350 µm .3 presents the results. One of the three dies was etched to the target depth shown in table 5. The two others were over and under etched 10% of the calculated target time respectively. Figures C1 to C10 in Appendix C show SEM pictures of a few sample dies. The combinations run in the experiment are shown in Table 5.Process optimization: Convex corner compensating structures 59 Three die of each group and etch depth combination were pattered on (100) silicon wafers as shown in figure 5.2 CCCS sizing experiment combinations Feature sizes Nominal 110% size 90% size 300 µm A1 A2 A3 300 µm + ∆T B1 B2 B3 300 µm .∆T I1 I2 I3 . Table 5.12 masking CCCS dimensions for pyramid Figure 5.2.

5 7.5 20 -2. that has the least corner bevelling and variation in case of an over/under etch.5 -15 5 Undercut at pyramid top [µm] 10 0 10 15 12.3 CCCS sizing experiment results Underetched * * * * * * * * Die A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E1 E2 E3 F1 F2 F3 G1 G2 G3 H1 H2 H3 I1 I2 I3 Etch depth [µm] 300 300 315 328 408 384 243 290 247 400 327 385 432 402 407 266 250 285 400 384 410 423 392 412 376 393 300 Undercut at pyramid base [µm] 15 5 25 30 25 35 -5 -10 10 20 -5 25 25 2.5 15 -25 10 12 0 20 0.60 MICROFABRICATION TABLE 5.25 5 0 10 -2.5 35 -5 -10 0 5 -5 30 40 0 45 -7.5 -7. All under etched die are not .5 10 The goal is to find the CCCS size of a fully etched or over etched die.5 15 22 0 20 -5 -7.

Die A is selected as the optimum geometry for the KOH etch to be used.Process optimization: Convex corner compensating structures 61 considered since the remaining corner structures would affect the engagement of concave and convex alignment structures. .

62 MICROFABRICATION .

1 shows the test set-up used. Notice the mating wafers are mounted on the TBM8 wafer chuck. Figure 6.2 and 6.Chapter 6 TESTING AND RESULTS Testing of the passive wafer alignment structures was performed at the MTL on an Electronics Vision Group™ TBM8 measurement system. The TBM8 takes advantage of an error doubling effect when the front to back side measurements are taken 180 degrees from each other. are the top and bottom wafer alignment marks. The front-toback side misalignment is calculated based on the relative position at which the hairline markers were placed. facing down. After placing a wafer with both sides patterned. Displayed on the screen. The wafer with convex features was placed on top of the wafer with concave features. a hair-line pointer is placed over the alignment marks of the wafer front and back side. The base is rotated 180 degrees. or in our case the two mating wafers. and the process of placing the hair-line pointer over the alignment marks is repeated.3 show close-up views of the self-aligned wafers on the vacuum chuck. as shown in 63 . 6. The TBM8 consists of a rotating wafer chuck base and an optical system that displays a magnified picture of the wafer front and back side simultaneously on a monitor. Figures 6.1 Testing sequence The wafer with concave features was put on the TBM8 with the features facing up. with the major flat pointing in the machine’s negative “y” direction.

Note the cantilevers and bottom wafer showing on the left side of the stack Figure 6. After the top wafer had reached a stable position (i.e. the front-to-back side alignment accuracy was measured following the sequence described previously. Electronics Vision TBM8 Figure 6. .1 Measurement set-up used to test the passive wafer alignment features. The two wafers were aligned roughly and tapped lightly to enable the wafer alignment features to engage and self-align the wafers.3.64 TESTING AND RESULTS Figure 6.2 Wafer chuck and top CCD objective. would not move when tapped lightly). The measurement coordinate system is indicated Figure 6.3 Detailed view of passive wafer aligned stack.

1 Cap test results. Outlier are extreme values.55 The cap test shows sub-micrometer repeatability of the measurement system.42 Y[µm] -5. wafers M-1 & F-1. The base was tapped lightly. as described previously. as shown in Figures 5. F2 were tested. as well as the length of the error vector.33 0. The repeatability is calculated as the range of the data.3 Repeatability and accuracy results of passive wafer alignment Two wafers with patterned convex features. after removing the outlier values1. The average accuracy value for X and Y is given. The alignment accuracy was repeatedly measured without taking the wafers off the fixture.6. Two wafers with mating passive alignment features were placed on the TBM8. 6.Determination of the measurement system noise 65 6. TABLE 6. so traces of the CCCS were still present on the corners of the pyramid at the base.31 0.5 and 5. The error vector is the linear distance between the top and bottom alignment marks. Wafer M1 was slightly under etched.2 Determination of the measurement system noise A “cap” test was performed to estimate the noise of the measurement system. when the vacuum was lost. and its angle. and two wafers with patterned concave features F1. and after the top wafer had reached a stable position.28 2.42 Error Angle [deg] -86. preloaded Average accuracy Repeatability X [µm] 0.e highest and lowest readings .42 Error [µm] 5. The complete experimental data for the cap test is shown in Table D1 of Appendix D. M1 and M2. i. a mass was placed on the wafer stack to preload the wafer coupling and keep the top wafer from moving relative to the bottom one between measurement cycles.1 presents the results for a 20 cycle run. Table 6. Wafer M2 was over etched to eliminate the CCCS traces on the corner of the pyr- 1.36 0.

4 µm.2 32.2. The accuracy is 1. was snapped off after each 20 cycle run. There was however no trend to be seen. M-2 and F during the photolitography steps.06 Error Angle [deg] -50. The repeatability and accuracy of the wafer passive alignment was measured for a 20 cycle sequence. all cantilevers Average accuracy Repeatability X [µm] 0.3. neither in the repeatability. Figures 6. the alignment accuracy is significantly better. 6.4 Repeatability and accuracy as a function of number of contact points: the elastic averaging effect The same test sequence was repeated with wafers M-1 and F-1.47 seen is assumed to be caused mainly by the alignment of masks M-1. The measurements are presented in Table 6.2 Test results Wafers M-2 & F-1.08 1. starting at the wafer OD and working towards the center. Figures 5. To verify a relationship between the alignment repeatability and the number of contact points.5 show pictures taken from the convex structures after performing the test.8 show detailed views of the pyramids.88 0. using wafers M2 and F1 with the only preload being the top wafers mass.06 Error [µm] 1. a cantilever from each array. Compared to the cap test. Both concave wafers F1 and F2 were etched to the same depth. Since these masks were made from emulsion transparencies. of the Appendix D. Wit- . Repeatability of less then 1 µm was measured in several cases. nor on the accuracy of the alignment.63 Y[µm] -1.66 TESTING AND RESULTS amids. The complete data for this experiment is shown in Table D2 of Appendix D.7 and 5. The results are presented in table 6.4 and 6. The offset TABLE 6. The complete experimental data for this experiment is shown in Tables D3 through D9.41 1. with a minimum feature size of 20 µm. The overall repeatability value is around 1µm. such an offset seems reasonable.

31 -0.53 64.81 0. The accuracy .16 2.3 Test results wafers M-1 & F1.4.Repeatability and accuracy as a function of number of contact points: the elastic averaging effect 67 TABLE 6.21 -5.77 11.49 157.57 9. Based on the witness marks left.68 0.11 Error [µm] 5.01 175 26.35 2.81 1. The results are presented in Table 6.4 and 6. The same experiment was repeated with wafers M-2 and F-2.19 2.32 0.59 10.93 10.56 7.42 -4.19 7.46 0.88 0.63 0.02 0. Figures 6.5 show detailed views of some of the v-grooves.46 173 -11.67 -4.16 3.42 -5.25 1.76 0.45 4.39 6.11 2. the pyramid was probably not properly seated in the V-groove.56 0. no preload besides top wafer mass Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Total number of cantilevers 96 96 88 88 80 80 72 72 64 64 56 56 48 48 X [µm] -0.27 -6.68 -6.08 Error Angle [deg] -0.34 5. The complete test data for this experiment is presented in Tables D10 through D21 of Appendix D.54 2.63 -9.08 ness marks could be seen on the edges of the v-grooves left by the corner structures on the pyramids.04 0.4 3.59 -70.28 55.63 -9.34 0. The overall repeatability is mostly less than 1µm.94 1.85 Y[µm] -5.84 -7.51 0.81 66.90 0.24 3.

and drop as cantilevers were being snapped off. the accuracy of the measurement system is not significantly larger then the value measured. which have a minimum feature size of 20 µm. and thus the averaging effect is not noticeable. and F were made from emulsion transparencies.4 Detail of V-groove damage after M-1 & F1 wafer testing Figure 6. was not the case. Alignment to these masks caused an offset which was later observed when testing the wafer passive alignment features. This however. with an error vector of 7 µm. The large discrepancy between the repeatability values and the accuracy. that the accuracy and repeatability be best in the beginning of the test. It was expected. Although the alignment marks themselves are 3 µm wide. M-2. is due to an offset caused by the tolerance stack up of the individual wafers and the photolitographic steps used to pattern the features on the wafers. The shadowed area is the tapered sidewall of the V-groove remains almost constant. . It is assumed that the preload is too small so not all coupling features are engaged.68 TESTING AND RESULTS Figure 6. Masks M-1.5 Detailed of V-groove damage after M-1 F-1 wafer testing. On the other hand. so it is possible that the system noise make the trend unnoticeable.

16 -6.87 8.3 0.85 -5.84 -7.93 1.29 0.86 0.52 0.29 0.99 0.19 32.68 -1.44 0.37 0.42 Y[µm] 1.87 7.63 -5.52 7.46 7.3 .22 0.86 3.43 7.82 0.43 1.86 -3.26 0.84 4.79 Average accuracy Repeatability -4.43 -5.4 Test results wafers M-2 & F-2.46 0.68 Error Angle [deg] -11.84 -1.43 0.06 5. no preload besides top wafer mass Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Average accuracy Repeatability Total number of cantilevers 96 96 88 88 80 80 72 72 64 64 56 56 48 48 40 40 32 32 X [µm] -6.84 4.09 -6.89 49.63 Error [µm] 7.26 0.63 -6.12 6.32 0.21 -4.55 0.07 1.56 35.01 7.63 -6.42 -3.52 6.63 6.22 30.12 .69 0.04 -4.21 0.40 53.15 3.42 -4.05 7.75 0.67 12.51 3.61 0.42 0.78 0.35 0.91 5.83 1.60 -69.Repeatability and accuracy as a function of number of contact points: the elastic averaging effect 69 TABLE 6.

89 8.89 0.47 32.87 1.64 8.16 7.53 Average accuracy Repeatability -7.05 Error [µm] 8.42 -4.53 0.58 32.77 0.45 3.4 Test results wafers M-2 & F-2.14 0.84 Y[µm] -3.70 TESTING AND RESULTS TABLE 6.45 6.59 Average accuracy Repeatability -7.67 Error Angle [deg] 27.56 0.20 .77 0.51 0. no preload besides top wafer mass Total number of cantilevers Average accuracy Repeatability 24 24 16 16 8 8 X [µm] -7.89 0.42 -4.

specially considering that 20 µm feature size masks were used to pattern the features. as well as the process to bulk micro machine the features on silicon. but the results are inconclusive. The wet anisotropic etch leaves the etched (100) too rough for anodic bonding. most likely due to the level of noise in the measurement system and the lack of preload needed to force all passive alignment features to engage. The size of the alignment features can be optimized to reduce the lost wafer area. It is important to mention that the processes used to create the wafer alignment features restrict further processing. that enable the passive alignment were developed. better manufacturing methods need to be developed and tested. Hence. Testing shows that sub micrometer repeatability and one micrometer accuracy is indeed feasible with the proposed technique. The tests show that using as little as two alignment features per wafer edge yields submicrometer repeatability. Nevertheless the results are impressive. The elastic averaging effect. 71 . such as eutectic bonding could be used. now that the basic strategy has been developed. as a function of number of contact points was evaluated. The coupling features were fabricated and tested.Chapter 7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK Various macro-scale precision alignment techniques were presented and evaluated for their application feasibility in aligning wafers. A passive wafer alignment technique. Other bonding processes however.

e-beam written masks. Further testing using traditional. should be performed to make a better evaluation of the accuracy limitations of this passive wafer alignment technique.72 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK The results of this research are a proof of concept that macro-scale precision alignment techniques can indeed be applied to align wafers to each other with high precision. .

Bridgeport Connecticut. Toy building brik. pages 676-680 [5] Y. Slocum. 7 . MA 2000. Boston. September 2001. 2000. Slocum. Precision Engineering.944.1970. 2. . Microeng. J. MEMS and packaging applications. wafer-level aligned bonding for interconnect. Moore Special Tool Company. IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine. Microsystem Design. Fundations of mechaincal accuracy. April 1992. Pages 93-98 [6] C. et al. Micromech. H. pages 67-76 [10] A.282. Bostock. Micromech. Silicon nitride microclips for the kinematic location of optic fibres in silicon V-shaped grooves. Sparks. October 1961 73 . US patent 5. et al. 2001. US patent 3. Strandman. October 1997 [11] A. pages 30-33 [3] J. Microeng. No. page 161 [2] Douglas R. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Slocum. Slocum. One micron precision.005. Senturia. Christiansen. 1999. Bäcklund. Packaging for Harsh Environments.678. Micromechanics in optical microsystems-with focus on telecom systems. H. in chapter 11 Handbook of Mechanical Engineering. J.1998. pages 85-91 [9] A. 8. CRC Press LLC. pages 233-235 [13] G. -Q. Micromech. H. 8 . 1998. Proceedings of the IEEE 2001 International. No. Stacked Chip-to-Chip Interconnections Using Wafer Bonding Technology with Dielectric Bonding Glues. Pages 3944 [7] R. Engineering Design. Lü. Kinematic couplings for precision fixturing-Part 1: Formulation of design parameters. R. Flexural mount kinematic couplings and method. Mirza. K. IEEE. R. Vol 14. Moore.REFERENCES [1] Stephen D. page 76 [12] W. Interconnect Technology Conference. Precision Engineering . et al. Design of three-groove kinematic couplings. Passive and fixed alignment of devices using flexible silicon elements formed by selective etching. Pages 343360 [8] A. Microeng. H. M. 1997. Electronic Components & Technology Conference. pages 219-221 [4] A. 1998. J. et al. 2. 10. VOL.

pages 251254 [26] Gregory Kovacs. No. et al. et al. Proceedings of the IEEE. 56. J. 1. CA. Microeng. H.254. Corner compensation techniques in anisotropic etching of (100)-Silicon using aqueous KOH . Sensors and Actutors. 7th International Conference Solid-State Sensors and Actuators (Transducers 1991). Bulk micromachining of silicon. San Francico. A new approach to convex corner compensation for anisotropic etching of (100) Si in KOH. pages 39-44 [21] R. Design for Manufacturability: Product Definition. pages 88-97 [24] H. May 1962 [15] A. J.. Micormechaincs in optical microsystems-with focus on telecom systems. pages 692 -697 [19] Yvla Bäcklund. 1991. et al. Dearborn Michigan. Microeng. Silicon nitride microclips for the kinematic location of optic fibres in silicon V-shaped grooves. 1998. 7. Micromech. et al. [18] N. pages 456-459 [25] Qingxin Zhang.1. Microlens for efficient couopling between LED and optical fiber. Micromech. Precision Machine Design. et al. M. Christiansen. . 8.034. Tech. Toy building sets and building blocks. pages 346-360 [22] Nam Suh. MEMS 2000. pages 120-123 [16] Kos Ishii. Microeng. Oxford university Press. Passive and fixed alignment of devices using flexible silicon elements formed by selective etching. 2000. A. Bostock. Society of Manufacturing Engineers. pages 5 [23] Henning Schroeder. 4. . Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems. Sandmaier. Digest. page 3 [17] Eun-Hyun Park. No. Vol 10. Section 2. 1998. IEEE Thirteenth Annual International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems. pages 93-98 [20] Carola Strandman. April 1999. 8. January 2002. Notes for ME-217A in Department of Mechaincal Engineering at Stanford University. Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. J. Convex corner undercutting of {100} silicon in anisotropic KOH etching: The new step-flow model of 3-D structuring and first simulation results. K.Introduction to Design of Manufacturability. US patent 3. New York.74 REFERENCES [14] G. 2001. Microconnectors for the passive alingnment of optical waverguides and ribbon optical fibers. Micromech. page 439441. 1992. Kaou. IEEE Photonics Technology Letters. et al. Slocum. et al. 1996.. Vol 11. 1997.

pages 1536-1551 . 86. August 1998.REFERENCES 75 Vol. No. 8.

76 REFERENCES .

Appendix A PROCESS SEQUENCE 77 .

R.R.R.R.R.R.R. 85s Std.R.1 Concave coupling process Step 0 1.78 APPENDIX A TABLE A.R. Hf dip Transetch-N Description Pre-metal clean P.2 1.R.1 1. 1 µm 90 deg C. (wafer front side) Pre-bake P. 30 min 1-2 min 30 min SF6.R. HF dip 1 µm 90 deg C.3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Etch Si. Pattern nitride Strip P. Expose Mask-F (front side. Anisotropic etch (timed) Post KOH etch clean Strip nitride .3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Lab TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL ICL ICL ICL ICL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL ICL ICL EML TRL TRL Machine Acidhood HMDS Coater Pre-bake oven EV1 Photo wet-1 (non-Au) Post-bake oven AME5000 Asher RCA-hood Tube A-5 HMDS Coater Pre-bake oven EV1 Photo wet-1 (non Au) Post-bake oven AME5000 Asher KOH hood (non Au) Acidhood Acidhood Recipe Piranha.8 h 2XPiranha. Post-bake P. (wafer back side) Strip P. adhesion promoter Coat with 1 µm positive P. aligning to back side) Develop P. SF6-85 s 2 min KOH. 30 min 1-2 min 30 min CF4-16s. Post bake P. Expose alignment marks (Mask-A) Develop P.1 9.R. adhesion promoter Coat with 1 µm positive P. 7. (wafer back side) Pre-bake P. RCA clean Deposit Nitride (2000A) P.2 9.

2000A Si3N4 1 µm 90 deg C.1 1.5 min 120 deg C. Etch Si. (wafer front side) Pre-bake P. Post-bake P. 30 min 1. (alignment marks.R. Expose Mask-M-1 (wafer back side) Develop P.2 1.3 10 11 12 13 14 15 Lab TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL ICL ICL ICL ICL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL ICL TRL ICL* Machine Acidhood HMDS Coater Pre-bake oven EV1 Photo wet-1 (non-Au) Post-bake oven AME5000 Acidhood RCA-hood Tube A-5 / Concept-1 HMDS Coater Pre-bake oven EV1 Photo wet-1 (non Au) Post-bake oven AME5000 Acidhood KOH hood (non Au) Acidhood Recipe Piranha. wafer front side) Strip P.3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Expose alignment marks (Mask-A) Develop P.R.5 min 30 min CF4 55s Piranha Clean KOH.R.R.1 TRL Post KOH clean . 25% weight.1 9.2 Convex coupling process Step 0 1. HF dip 1 µm 90 deg C. 85C Piranha clean (yellow tank) Description Pre-metal clean P. adhesion promoter Coat with 1 µm positive P.R. (wafer back side) Pre-bake P.R. 30 min 1.5s 1. 30 min Chamber B.R. adhesion promoter Coat with 1 µm positive P. HCl+HBr Piranha Std.R.APPENDIX A 79 TABLE A.R.R.R. 3h 45 min (300µm deep). clean for Diffusion Tube / Concept-1 Deposit Silicon Nitride P.2 9. Anisotropic etch (timed) 16.5s 1.R. Post bake P. Pattern nitride Strip P.

2 16.R. 60 min 22s 3-4 min 90C.. Post-bake after develop Mount on 4’’ handle wafer (front side up) DRIE etch Acetone release Strip P. / teflon . wafer front side) Pre-bake Expose Mask M-2 Develop P.R.R.3 17 18.1 18.) 90C.2 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Lab TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL TRL Machine Acidhood Acidhood Acidhood HMDS Coater Pre-bake oven EV1 Photo wet-1 (non-Au) Pre-bake oven STS-1 Photo wet station (non Au) Asher Recipe Piranha clean (green tank) HF dip Trans etch-N 10 µm (thick P.80 APPENDIX A TABLE A. 30 min 100 µm deep etch - Description Post KOH clean Post KOH clean Strip nitride P.R.2 Convex coupling process Step 16. adhesion promoter Coat with 10 µm (thick P.R.

Appendix B MASKS 81 .

82

APPENDIX B

Figure B.1 Mask M-1

APPENDIX B

83

Figure B.2 Mask M-2

84

APPENDIX B

Figure B.3 Mask F

2 CCCS optimization.Appendix C EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS: CCCS Figure C. die E1 Figure C. die E2 85 .1 CCCS optimization.

die G2 . corner detail die G1 Figure C. die G1 Figure C. die E3 Figure C.5 CCCS optimization.3 CCCS optimization.86 APPENDIX C Figure C.4 CCCS optimization.6 CCCS optimization.

die G3 Figure C.9 CCCS optimization.APPENDIX C 87 Figure C. die I3 .8 CCCS optimization I1 Figure C.10 CCCS optimization.7 CCCS optimization. die I2 Figure C.

88 APPENDIX C .

Appendix D PASSIVE WAFER ALIGNMENT TEST DATA 89 .

27 5.06 -5.77 -87.42 0.06 -5.42 0.42 0.71 -87.48 -5.21 0 0.71 -85.27 -5.21 0.21 0.69 -5.33 -85.88 -85.44 -85.94 -85.27 5.42 0 0.1 Cap Test data.71 .28 5.25 -85.90 -85.27 -5.27 -5.06 -5.71 -85.48 -5.27 -5.27 5.44 -87.49 5.44 -80.27 5.69 5.12 5.48 5.70 5.49 5.84 0.25 -87.27 -5.21 0.44 Error Angle [deg] -85.28 5.27 5.07 5.21 0.48 5.42 0.69 -5.44 -85.42 0.84 Y [µm] -5.70 5.27 -5.21 0.27 -5.42 0.90 APPENDIX D TABLE D.61 -82.21 0.48 -5.28 5.44 -85.42 0.06 -5.28 5.69 -5.63 0.27 Error [µm] 5.48 -5.09 5.27 -5.42 0.27 -5.57 -80. wafers M-1 & F-1 preloaded Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 X [µm] 0.27 -5.28 5.61 -85.28 5.77 -87.42 0.27 -5.07 5.42 0.8 -87.

07 -44.10 0.84 Y [µm] -1.26 -1.18 1.63 0.93 1.99 -36.14 -44.69 -0.40 1.26 0.80 1.84 -0.05 0.03 -56.22 0.05 1.63 0.84 1.22 1.30 .69 1.18 1.84 1.APPENDIX D 91 TABLE D.47 -0.19 -31.43 -59.69 0.34 1.05 0.84 0.84 0.43 -44.99 -50.19 -60.17 1.05 2.2 Test data Wafers M-2 & F-1.26 -0.27 2.42 -1.99 -50.26 Error [µm] 2.26 1.96 -63.05 0.69 -0.84 -1.51 Error Angle [deg] -56.44 -61.84 1.99 -58.98 1.84 0.18 1.84 -1.18 1.26 -0.25 -30. all cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 X [µm] 1.84 -1.42 0.64 1.84 -1.05 -0.05 0.34 -44.84 1.63 -0.84 -1.86 -63.63 1.90 -1.63 -1.05 0.19 -53.32 -51.13 -53.64 1.05 -1.90 -0.

05 0.60 -79.82 5.90 -5.9 5.05 85. no preload besides top wafer mass.42 0.44 -79. 96 X [µm] 0.78 5.6 -79.69 Error [µm] 5.90 -5.69 -5.47 1.00 -75.90 -5.26 -1.63 1.05 -1.88 83.90 78.88 -79.57 5.13 5.61 83.82 5.48 5.75 5.19 6.48 -5.75 5.26 Y [µm] -5.48 -5.48 -5.51 .90 79.90 83.69 -5.48 -5.90 -5.11 77.62 5.95 5.63 -1.54 -87.51 72.37 5.57 6.48 -5.95 TABLE D.24 6.05 1.15 85.68 -1.88 1.84 1.69 -5.90 -6.89 81.21 1.26 -1.51 5.68 -0.48 -5.21 -0.49 -76.73 Error Angle [deg] -85.69 -5.84 -1.48 -5.92 APPENDIX D TABLE D.80 -77.73 -81.69 -5.84 -0.82 Error Angle [deg] 81.3 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1.69 5.9 -5.05 -0.90 74.51 83. no preload besides top wafer mass.69 -5.05 0.63 -1.26 -0.48 Error [µm] 5.27 -5.32 72.49 5.08 6.96 -5.69 5.88 -0.42 -0.10 87.60 77.99 5.933 6.69 -5.15 -72.42 1.26 -0.90 -5.69 -5.90 -5.90 -5.68 Y [µm] -5.32 -5.51 5.44 77.91 5.21 1.99 5.53 5. 88 X [µm] -0.51 77.92 -87.63 -1.82 5.49 5.05 -0.4 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1.48 -5.

72 2.68 2.07 7.43 83.9 -6.12 Error Angle [deg] 82.68 -68.5 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1.02 -66.42 -0.07 7.15 TABLE D.74 -6.72 2.32 7.10 -70.31 6.74 -5.51 2.19 .30 2.93 2.38 -68.52 7.72 Y [µm] -6.37 6.15 -73.68 -72.72 7.74 Error [µm] 6.97 -67.84 -0. no preload besides top wafer mass.53 -6.74 -6.95 -6.19 -72.53 -6.30 2.56 6. no preload besides top wafer mass.16 -7.3 2.30 2. 80 X [µm] -0.99 7.37 -7.32 7.16 -68.19 7.93 6.30 2.48 86.42 86.63 -0.30 Y [µm] -6.51 2.50 -71.72 2.09 2.26 7.38 -71.07 7.75 5.53 -6.15 -71.30 2.74 -6.72 2. 72 X [µm] 2.26 -70.30 2.72 5.72 2.58 7.12 7.53 -6.95 -7.59 -71.3 0 2.9 -6.25 7.68 -71.57 -67.42 1.6 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1.53 -6.53 -6.16 -7.95 -6.65 Error Angle [deg] -67.95 -6.32 -5.12 7.00 0 -73.16 -7.11 -5.79 -6.13 6.APPENDIX D 93 TABLE D.9 -6.51 2.68 -71.90 7.06 -74.32 -6.30 2.26 -72.63 -0.38 -69.90 84.92 7.16 Error [µm] 7.74 -6.32 7.52 7.09 2.74 -6.34 7.12 6.66 -70.3 2.95 -6.25 6.19 -69.

64 -9.36 9.55 10.48 -9.29 10.69 -9.11 10.40 -5.98 10. 56 X [µm] -3.48 -9.09 .79 10.44 -3.19 -4.92 10.19 -4.79 10.61 67.27 -9.09 67.77 -4.90 -9.87 64.07 10.8 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1.90 Error [µm] 11.19 -4.18 62.09 64.61 61.98 -4.85 -9.75 10.13 10.19 -5.76 65.98 -4.66 66.13 10.90 -9.90 66.85 -9.00 -9.07 9.61 -4.48 -8.90 67.69 -9.11 -9.7 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1.19 -4.78 64.19 -3.15 64.14 10.06 -8.07 9.19 -4.94 APPENDIX D TABLE D.26 66.66 64.21 69.90 -9.94 10. no preload besides top wafer mass.19 11.32 10.08 9.07 Error Angle [deg] 65.55 10.48 66.07 10.40 -5.4 -4.98 -4.4 -4.19 -4.85 -8.36 10.06 9.15 65.23 -4.74 67.32 -10.69 -9.69 -10.09 64.06 -9.19 -3.19 Y [µm] -10.43 -9.06 -8.61 68.69 -9.27 66.36 10.51 10.18 66.70 9.43 58.19 -4.15 64. 64 X [µm] -4.39 11.67 10.19 -4.32 -9.19 -4.06 Error [µm] 9.75 Error Angle [deg] 67.09 58.19 -4.40 Y [µm] -8.82 68.55 11.06 66. no preload besides top wafer mass.56 -3.20 -9.98 -3.48 -9.06 -9.83 -4.09 64.06 TABLE D.4 -4.

19 Error Angle [deg] -15.02 7.90 1.27 7.12 -6.60 56.01 -6.26 1.10 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Test data wafers M-2 & F-2.79 -8.37 55.58 -7.58 -2.23 -5.70 9. no preload besides top wafer mass.9 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Test data wafers M-1 & F-1.43 7.68 8.57 9.22 -7.74 -12.43 56.42 1.43 -8. 48 X [µm] -2.70 -7.27 -11.03 -15.95 -7.86 Y [µm] -6.25 Error Angle [deg] 64.90 1.98 -9.58 -7.91 -6.26 1.23 -5.11 -7.64 6.58 -8.79 -7.26 Error [µm] 7.42 53.75 -10.81 54.44 -5.03 -5.37 -10.81 7.10 53.23 7.70 TABLE D.91 -7.29 25.16 6.38 9.65 -5.29 50.77 9.16 56.74 -11.44 -5.79 -7.33 -6.37 -15.26 1.16 6.78 -5.47 1.211.86 -5.61 7.04 56.12 53.85 9.48 -10.26 1.65 -5.45 9.38 5.91 6.23 -5.37 -6.02 9.16 7.66 -10.54 -6.44 -5.65 -9.12 -7.72 .12 -7.07 Y [µm] 1.93 -5.91 -6.26 1.56 6.09 9.42 1.39 57.12 55.74 9. 96 X [µm] -6.91 -6.33 -11.03 -5.69 0.37 -12.91 -1.20 10.58 -7.28 -7.90 1.26 1.APPENDIX D 95 TABLE D.91 -6. no preload besides wafer mass.16 Error [µm] 6.49 -7.26 7.38 9.79 -7.44 -5.03 9.45 6.43 7.

74 -1.75 0.28 -6.311 5.86 TABLE D.91 6.47 -3.88 6.35 7.18 -1.07 -6.54 -6.83 Error Angle [deg] -3.33 -7.21 0.42 0.63 0.89 6.21 0.43 0.72 -2.33 6.40 7.7 -6.61 6.35 -1.27 0.84 0.14 -5. no preload besides wafer mass.17 -3.78 Error [µm] 6.54 -7.75 6.922 7.30 0.51 6.42 0.84 0.75 6.21 1.12 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Range Test data wafers M-2 & F-2.84 Error [µm] 6.58 7.91 -6.84 0. 88 X [µm] -6.54 -7.63 0.10 6. 80 X [µm] -6.55 -3.59 -1.61 -5. no preload besides wafer mass.31 5.86 -6.49 -7.28 0.63 0.99 -7.91 -6.28 -5.70 -6.61 -7.99 7.59 .84 0.28 -6.92 -7.866 Error Angle [deg] -9.05 0.21 0.63 0.33 -7.26 0.28 -6.75 -7.55 6.13 -6.15 -4.84 Y [µm] 0.91 -7.33 6.63 0.36 6.96 APPENDIX D TABLE D.42 0.29 0.14 -7.62 -.84 Y [µm] 1.91 -6.54 7.75 7.84 0.72 -6.92 6.88 -6.72 -8.28 -5.05 0.11 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Range Test data wafers M-2 & F-2.

68 -1.19 4.04 Y [µm] 4.85 Error [µm] 5.90 -5.61 -4.42 Error Angle [deg] 55.39 TABLE D.67 12.67 1.40 7.63 51.19 -4.82 -69.05 -64.68 -1.51 -70.92 4.56 .00 4.99 54.19 -4.06 7.61 53.85 4.69 -5.19 -4.90 -5.85 4.69 53. no preload besides wafer mass.63 4.07 4.95 -68.19 4.88 -1.00 Error Angle [deg] -65.14 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average Range Test data wafers M-2 & F-2.26 -1.88 -1.48 7.81 -7.68 -1.APPENDIX D 97 TABLE D.85 0.22 -70. 64 X [µm] -4.42 4.63 4.7 -72. 72 X [µm] -2.23 7.69 -5.06 7.06 7.18 -4.51 0.69 -5.74 5.19 -4.43 Y [µm] -6.42 Error [µm] 7.30 0.00 4. no preload besides wafer mass.82 1.80 5.88 -1.85 3.09 -1.11 -5.20 4.22 0.63 4.13 4.13 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average Range Test data wafers M-2 & F-2.05 -1.05 -66.63 53.55 53.89 -70.63 4.92 4.

69 35.21 -4.21 -4.70 -6.14 31.49 -6.70 -6.83 36.02 8.69 33.91 7.86 -5.86 -6.86 -5.56 7.14 33. 56 X [µm] -5.21 -4.15 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average Range Test data wafers M-2 & F-2.41 32.91 8. 48 X [µm] -6.42 -4.70 -6.02 7.56 8.41 32.63 Y [µm] -4.70 -6.14 30.34 7.21 Error [µm] 7.63 Y [µm] -4.13 35.67 7.73 7.49 -6.21 7.06 33.28 -5.28 -6.21 -4.91 7.21 -4. no preload besides wafer mass.41 33.7 -6.42 -4.37 0.18 TABLE D.02 35.69 35.50 7.42 -4.51 3.97 32.07 -6.42 -4.70 -6.42 -4.83 33.21 7.21 7.91 5.82 0.26 0.51 Error Angle [deg] 32.00 -4.21 -4.21 -4.55 0.83 37.21 0.42 -4.21 -4.28 -5.22 .98 APPENDIX D TABLE D.02 7.86 -6.00 -4.99 0. no preload besides wafer mass.16 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Average Range Test data wafers M-2 & F-2.62 7.80 7.42 Error [µm] 7.21 -4.64 32.70 -6.46 Error Angle [deg] 35.

69 -5.17 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average Range Test data wafers M-2 & F-2.62 7.49 31.22 0.29 7.51 7.13 7.28 -6.70 -6.90 -5.80 7.61 -4.00 -3.36 7.49 -6.86 7.48 -5.40 -4.36 6.64 28.44 7.79 -3.21 30.06 5.03 -5.12 7.27 -5.28 -6.98 48.70 -6.06 -5.87 8.69 -5.APPENDIX D 99 TABLE D.28 48.03 -4.22 7.49 -6.37 -4.32 6.37 -3.28 -6. 40 X [µm] -6.00 -3.28 48.79 TABLE D.45 0.67 Error Angle [deg] 29.40 -4.43 1.61 0.18 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Range Test data wafers M-2 & F-2. no preload besides wafer mass.68 32.12 7.69 -5.63 Y [µm] -5.49 7.28 30.40 -4.29 7.63 Error [µm] 7.06 -5.68 0. 32 X [µm] -4.90 -5.32 7.59 7.21 26.49 28.05 Error [µm] 7.82 -4.58 -4.48 -5.52 45.42 0. no preload besides wafer mass.44 7.61 -4.66 48.83 30.00 -3.17 53.40 -5.88 Error Angle [deg] 53.14 49.99 50.00 -4.70 32.82 -4.11 .70 7.42 Y [µm] -3.37 -4.28 -6.98 5.28 -6.66 50.

58 -3.64 Error [µm] 8.63 8.27 32.96 8.96 9.55 0.63 -4.53 8.85 -4.14 8.00 -3.05 Error [µm] 8.42 -4.72 8.14 8.06 -4.50 0.33 -7.33 -7.14 9.66 8.58 TABLE D.54 -7.100 APPENDIX D TABLE D.42 -4.08 32.25 8.75 -7.33 -7.63 -5. 16 X [µm] -7.66 8.75 -7.52 0.42 -4.85 -4.17 31.42 Y [µm] -4.25 8.85 -4.58 -3.85 -4.53 8.45 8.17 -7.66 23.16 7.20 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Average Range Test data wafers M-2 & F-2.27 34.55 8.84 8.61 33.75 31.21 27.89 0.34 31.79 -4.03 32.87 1.79 -4.84 Y [µm] -3.33 -7.03 32. 24 X [µm] -8.85 4.33 -7.94 27.49 32.90 8.75 -7. no preload besides wafer mass.33 -7.50 24.55 -7.35 8.33 -7.55 8.55 9.91 8. no preload besides wafer mass.33 -7.08 27.03 32.79 24.96 -7.21 -4.00 -3.52 .85 -4.33 -7.75 32.54 -7.54 -7.44 3.63 -4.58 -3.76 0.37 3.55 32.78 8.55 -7.19 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Average Range Test data wafers M-2 & F-2.58 Error Angle [deg] 31.54 -7.62 27.33 -7.66 Error Angle [deg] 23.54 -7.08 29.34 28.

68 8.19 0.21 cantilevers Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average Range Test data wafers M-2 & F-2.69 26.57 6.37 -3.69 23.33 -7.91 -7. no preload besides wafer mass.37 -3.APPENDIX D 101 TABLE D.91 -7.46 Error Angle [deg] 24.57 20.12 -6.84 Error [µm] 8.37 -3.82 7. 8 X [µm] -7.8 7.74 -3.49 25.42 Y [µm] -3.06 7.06 8.96 7.99 24.33 -7.16 -3.37 -3.33 -6.06 -7.33 -7.68 7.32 24.16 -2.99 24.37 -3.58 -3.69 25.19 .69 24.33 -.14 0.59 7.88 0.91 -7.

102 APPENDIX D .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful