Plasma Electron Flood for a Scanned Beam Implanter

Makoto Sano, Mitsuaki Kabasawa, Fumiaki Sato, and Michiro Sugitani

Sumitomo Eaton Nova Corporation, Product Engineering
1501 Imazaike, Toyo, Ehime 799-1362 Japan

Abstract- Recently, charging damage has been observed even large chamber by magnetic multi-cusp fields formed by
in relatively low dose implantation on medium current ion permanent magnets. The magnets are held in aluminum
implanters, especially in the case of wafers coated with plates and iron plates outside the chamber form return yokes
photoresist patterns. To suppress the charging damage in for the magnets and provide an external shield from the
implantation, a plasma electron flood system has been developed
for the medium current ion implanter, NV-MC3, which has an
magnetic fields. A part of the electrons in the confining
electrostatic beam scanning system and accommodates up to chamber is extracted from a long slit by the ion beam
300mm wafers. The plasma electron flood system has a large potential and reach the wafer with the ions in the beam.
size chamber with multi-cusp magnetic fields and supplies The CM detection system is localized near the wafer held
electrons for the scanned beam from a long slit to the whole
scanning region. An in-situ charge detection system has been also on an electrostatic chuck without interfering with wafer
developed to monitor the performance of the flood system. The transfer as shown in Fig.2. A charge pickup of the CM is a
evaluation results of these systems will be reported below. graphite plate insulated from surroundings. Charge
accumulated on the pickup by the ion beam and electrons is
I. INTRODUCTION measured as voltage signals.
With scaling down of semiconductor devices, charging III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
damage has become non-negligible even in relatively low
dose implantation on medium current ion implanters. Some Fig.3 shows typical CM signals monitored with an
damage is observed as blowout craters formed by discharge oscilloscope during implantation into a Si wafer with an
on the surface of wafers coated with photoresist patterns. oxide layer of about 2000Å thickness. In this case, a
Therefore, charge neutralizing systems for medium current capacitance of 10000pF was inserted in parallel with the
ion implanters had been investigated vigorously [1-3]. The oscilloscope probe for smoothing of the CM signals. A pair
medium current ion implanter, NV-MC3 [4,5], which is of positive peaks in Fig.3 indicates the ion beam striking the
manufactured by Sumitomo Eaton Nova Corporation, adopts CM pickup during two mechanical wafer scans. The beam
an electrostatic beam scanning system and accommodates up condition is Ar+/106keV/2.4mA under (a) PEF:OFF and (b)
to 300mm wafers. The NV-MC3 has a secondary electron PEF:ON. In (b), Ar flow rate=1sccm, Va=30V, Ia=3A,
flood system in order to suppress the charging damage. Ve=0V, where Va, Ia and Ve mean setting values of an arc
However, in operation of the secondary electron flood system, voltage, an arc current and an extraction voltage, respectively.
one might be concerned about negative charging damage,
because secondary electrons could have relatively high
energy due to 300V acceleration voltage of primary electrons. Wafer Flood box
Therefore, with the aim of lowering the electron energy, a
Ion beam
plasma electron flood system (PEF), which has multi-cusp
magnetic fields for electron confinement, has been developed
for the NV-MC3. At the same time, a charge detection
system has been developed to monitor the in-situ condition of
Slit
wafer charging during implantation. The system is called Charge
“Charge Monitor system (CM)”. CM signals were evaluated Monitor
under various PEF conditions. Yield of test element group
(TEG) wafers for charging damage evaluation, dose shifts,
VCM Extraction Arc Chamber
metal contamination, and PEF lifetime were also confirmed Ar gas
plate
with the PEF operation.
Vfilament
A Ifilament
II. DESIGN OF PEF AND CHARGE MONITOR
Varc
Fig.1 shows a schematic of the PEF developed for the NV- Electron A Iarc
MC3. The PEF is located just upstream of a wafer platen. A Vextraction
plasma is generated in an arc chamber by electron emission A Iextraction
from a heated filament, feeding Ar gas into the arc chamber,
and applying an arc voltage between the filament and the Confining chamber with
magnetic multi-cusp fields
chamber. Electrons in the arc chamber are extracted from a
hole of the chamber by applying extraction voltage between
the chamber and an extraction electrode connected to the
ground potential. The extracted electrons are confined in a Fig.1 Schematic of the plasma electron flood system

- 315 - 0-7803-7155-0/02/$10.00 © 2002 IEEE

 Charge Monitor
Mechanical scanning Ion beam
of wafer
Mechanical Wafer
scanning arm
( Front View )
Electrostatic scanning of Ion beam
Mechanical
scanning arm
Charge Monitor
( Top View )
Wafer
Fig.2 Location of the charge monitor system
The intensity of the positive peaks of the CM signals was
suppressed obviously from +38.6V to +11.6V with PEF
turning ON.
Fig.4 shows the maximum and the minimum values
perceived from the CM signals on the oscilloscope under
various PEF conditions, where the beam condition was
Ar+/106keV/2.4mA. In Fig.4(a), Ia was changed from 0A
(PEF:OFF) to 6A and in Fig.4(b), Ar gas flow rate was
changed from 0sccm (PEF:OFF) to 1sccm. These results
demonstrated a large reduction of maximum values from
+45.4V to +7.4V and +10.4V with increase of Ia and Ar gas
flow rate, while variation of minimum values was small from
–0.2V to –3.0V and –2.4V. The behavior of the CM signal
variation implied low energy electrons were provided from
the PEF to the wafer.
Fig.5 shows the CM signals detected with an oscilloscope
during implantation into a bare Si wafer without the PEF
operation. Implantation condition was the same as that in the
case of Fig.3. The positive peak intensity of the CM signal
decreased compared with that during implantation into the Si
wafer with an oxide layer without the PEF operation in
Fig.3(a). Such variation of positive peak intensity depending
on wafer types was considered to be caused by the difference
in the secondary electron yield of ions striking the wafers.
The CM signals during implantation into a wafer coated with
a photoresist film of 3µm thickness was similar to that during
implantation into the Si wafer with an oxide layer in Fig.3(a).
A typical model of unfilterd CM signal is shown in Fig.6.
Many sharp peaks show the ion beam striking the CM pickup
with each cycle of electrostatic beam scan (about 1000Hz).
The peaks disappear in Fig.3 and Fig.5, because of smoothing
- 316 -
(a)
10V
1sec
GND
(b)
1sec
10V
GND
Fig.3 Typical CM signals with smoothing during implant
into a Si wafer with an oxide layer. Implant condition was
Ar+/106keV/2.4mA under (a) PEF:OFF and (b) PEF:ON.
effect of the capacitance of 10000pF inserted in parallel with
the oscilloscope probe. On actual implanters, the maximum
and the minimum values of the CM signal in Fig.6 are stored
in a workstation with each mechanical wafer scan. At the
same time, the integrated value of the CM signal during the
whole implantation is also stored. These three values are
recorded in implant data logs and can be checked in long
term operation using the statistical process data in the control
system.
In order to evaluate more directly charge neutralization
ability of the PEF, implantation onto TEG wafers was
performed. The TEG wafers made by Kobelco (Kobe Steel,
Ltd.) have gate oxide with thickness of 50Å and antenna ratio
of 350-700000. Fig.7 shows yields of the TEGs which have
antenna ratio of 350000 depending on the variation of Ia in
the PEF operation. In this evaluation, the 200mm TEG wafer
was set on a 300mm wafer holder coated with a insulating
film in order to emphasize charging damage. The beam
condition was P+/60keV/1.8mA. TEG yields improved
monotonically with increase of Ia in the PEF operation. In
the case of dose at 1E14cm-2, TEG yields increased from
44.6% for Ia=0A (PEF:OFF) to 100% for Ia=8A (Ar flow
rate=1sccm, Va=30V, Ve=0V). On special beamless
0-7803-7155-0/02/$10.00 © 2002 IEEE
 50 1.8

(a) 1.6 (a)

40 Vdetect max (V) 1.4

1.2 Maximum value of

Vdetect min (V)
30 CM signal
1.0
Vdetect (V)

Signal
20 0.8
Minimum value of
0.6 CM signal
10
0.4

0.2
0
0.0

-10 -0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Ia (A) time (sec)

50 0.8

(b) (b)
40 Vdetect max (V)
0.6

30 Vdetect min (V)

0.4
Vdetect (V)

Signal

20

0.2
10

0 0.0

-10 -0.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -0.32 time
Ar (sccm)

Fig.4 Variation of the maximum and the minimum Fig.6 A typical model of unfilterd CM signal.
values of the CM signal under implant conditions of (a) The maximum and the minimum values of
Ar+/106keV/2.4mA. (a) is dependence on the arc current CM signal. (b) Enlarged view of a part of (a).
(Ar=1sccm, Va=30V, Ve=0V) and (b) is dependence on
the Ar flow rate (Va=30V, Ia=3A, Ve=0V).
120%

100%

1sec 80%
10V
Yeild

60%

40%
1E14cm-2
20% Beamless 30min
GND
0%
0 2 4 6 8 10
Ia (A)

Fig.7 Yields of TEGs after implantation

Fig.5 Typical CM signal without the PEF operation of P+/60keV/1.8mA/1E14cm-2 and after
for implantation into a bare Si wafer. The implant beamless implantation.
condition was Ar+/106keV/2.4mA.

- 317 - 0-7803-7155-0/02/$10.00 © 2002 IEEE

implantation lasting for 30 minutes, TEG yield was 100% for IV. CONCLUSIONS
Ia=3A (Ar flow rate=1sccm, Va=30V, Ve=0V). These TEG
results implied that a sufficient amount of electrons could be A plasma electron flood system (PEF) and a charge
provided from the PEF to the wafer and the energy of the monitor system (CM) have been developed for the medium
electrons were low enough to neglect negative charging current ion implanter, NV-MC3. The systems indicate the
damage caused from the PEF with appropriate PEF operation. following performance in characterization tests.
We are considering evaluations using 300mm TEG wafers (a) The CM signal displayed ion beam and electron
prepared by some our customers. currents. (b) Because the negative voltage signal was fairly
Table 1 shows sheet resistance shifts that resulted when small (>-4V) with the PEF operation, the energy of electrons
using the PEF. Implant condition was B+/70keV/2mA/ generated by the PEF was considered to be low enough. (c)
1E15cm-2 onto 300mm wafers. The value of sheet resistance The CM signals were influenced significantly by wafer types.
decreased from 96.238Ω/□ for Ar=0sccm (PEF:OFF) to (d) TEG yield improved from 44.6% to 100% under
implantation of P+/60keV/1.8mA/1E14cm-2 using the PEF.
95.661Ω/□ for Ar=1sccm (Va=30V, Ia=3A, Ve=0V), which (e) TEG yield was 100% with PEF operation under a
can be recognized as a dose shift of about +0.6%/sccm. beamless implant condition where negative charging damage
Uniformity hardly changed for variation of Ar flow rates was evaluated. (f) The sheet resistance shift was +0.6%/sccm
from 0sccm to 1sccm. Table 2 shows metal contamination for Ar flow rate. (g) The contamination amount of 27Al, 24Mg,
amounts under implantation of As+/40keV/3mA/2E16cm-2 56
Fe, 184W were less than 5ppm even under PEF operation.
onto 300mm wafers. The contamination amounts of 27Al, (h) The PEF lifetime has exceeded 1200 hours.
24
Mg, 56Fe, 184W detected by inductively coupled plasma
mass spectroscopy were less than 5ppm even under PEF Through these characterization tests, the PEF appears to be
operation. This PEF system has been running for longer than useful for charge neutralization on the NV-MC3, and the CM
1200 hours without any maintenance and troubles and the is considered as an effective tool for detection of charge
evaluation is still continuing. conditions during implantation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Table 1 Sheet resistance shifts. The authors would like to thank R. D. Rathmell at Axcelis
[B+/70keV/2mA/1E15cm-2] Technologies for his valuable contributions to these studies.
(PEF:ON, Va=30V, Ia=3A,Ve=0V)
REFERENCES
PEF Ar Rs σRs/Rs [1] J. M. Harlan and K. Petry, “Overview of the Eaton 8250
(sccm) (Ω/□) Medium Current Implanter,” IEEE Proc. of the 12th
International Conference on Ion Implantation Technology,
OFF 0.0 96.238 0.261% pp.266-269, June 1998.
[2] M. Tanjyo, S. Sasaki, T. Ikejiri, K. Nakao, and T.
ON 0.3 95.946 0.258% Nagayama, “Performance of a Plasma Flood Gun in the
ON 1.0 95.661 0.257% Medium Current Ion Implanter Exceed2000A,” IEEE
Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Ion
Implantation Technology, pp.588-591, September 2000.
[3] S. Sakai, N. Hamamoto, T. Ikejiri, and M. Tanjyo, “A
Table 2 Metal contamination level. Low Energy Plasma Flood Gun Using RF Plasma Formation,”
[As+/40keV/3mA/2E16cm-2] IEEE Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Ion
(PEF:ON, Va=30V, Ia=3A,Ve=0V) Implantation Technology, pp.592-595, September 2000.
27 24 56 184
[4] O. F. Campbell, A. M. Ray, M. Sugitani, and F. Sato,
PEF Ar Al Mg Fe W “Introducing the MC3 Medium Current 300mm Implanter,”
(sccm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) IEEE Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Ion
Implantation Technology, pp.154-157, June 1998.
OFF 0.0 2.2 0.20 3.8 0.14 [5] R. D. Rathmell, A. M. Ray , F. Sato, and C. J. Godfrey,
“Process Performance for Axcelis MC3 300mm Implanter,”
ON 1.0 2.0 0.24 3.1 3.0 IEEE Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Ion
Implantation Technology, pp.364-367, September 2000.

- 318 - 0-7803-7155-0/02/$10.00 © 2002 IEEE