Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 146 (6) 2139-2145 (1999)
2145
S0013-4651(98)08-015-X CCC: $7.00 © The Electrochemical Society, Inc.
Figure 11. Typical conformality within the process window investigated for
CVD Co films in Sematech’s nominal 0.25 m, 4:1 aspect ratio, trench
structures.
Figure 10. CVD Co film growth rate as a function of hydrogen reactant flow.
Co conformality within the process window investigated.—The
References
conformality of Co films was investigated in Sematech’s nominal
1. The National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, Semiconductor Industry
Association, San Jose, CA (1997).
0
.25 m, 4:1 aspect ratio, trench structures. For these studies, the
2
3
.
.
K. Maex, Semicond. Int., 18, 75 (1995).
process window consisted of substrate temperature, hydrogen reac-
tant flow, precursor flow rate, and reactor pressure values of 390ЊC,
S. L. Hsia, T. Y. Tan, P. Smith, and G. E. McGuire, J. Appl. Phys., 72, 1864 (1992),
and S. L. Hsia, T. Y. Tan, P. Smith, and G. E. McGuire, J. Appl. Phys., 70, 7579
(1991).
7
50 sccm, 0.5 sccm, and 1.5 Torr, respectively. It was found that the
4.
5.
6.
7.
G. Bai and R. Stivers, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 402, 215 (1996).
M. L. A. Dass, D. B. Fraser, and C.-S. Wei, Appl. Phys. Lett., 58, 1308 (1991).
K. Maex, Mater. Sci. Eng., R11, 53 (1993).
A. Vantomme, M.-A. Nicolet, G. Bai, and D. B. Fraser, Appl. Phys. Lett., 62, 243
(1993).
ratio of film thickness at the bottom of the trench to that in the field
was ϳ55%, as shown in Fig. 11. Alternatively, the ratio of film thick-
ness at the bottom of the trench to that on the sidewalls was ϳ110%.
Further studies are underway to establish an understanding of the
underlying mechanisms that drive film conformality in aggressive
device topographies and derive optimized process parameters for
enhanced step coverage in subquarter-micron device structures.
8
9
.
.
S. Nygren and S. Johansson, J. Appl. Phys., 68, 1050 (1990).
E. G. Colgan, C. Cabral, Jr., and D. E. Kotecki, J. Appl. Phys., 77, 614 (1995).
1
1
0. B.-S. Chen and M.-C.Chen, IEEE Trans. Eletron Devices, ED-43, 258 (1996).
1. S.-L. Zhang, J. Cardenas, F. M. d’Heurle, B. G. Svensson, and C. S. Peterson, Appl.
Phys. Lett., 66, 58 (1995).
1
1
2. J. R. Creighton and J. E. Palmer, Crit. Rev. Solid State Mater. Sci., 18, 175 (1993).
3. S. Sivaram, Chemical Vapor Deposition: Thermal and Plasma Deposition of Elec-
tronic Materials, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1995).
4. J.-O. Carlsson, in Handbook of Deposition Technologies for Films and Coatings,
R. F. Bunshah, Editor, p. 374, Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NJ (1994).
Conclusions
This paper reported the development of a thermal CVD process
for the deposition of pure Co from the source precursor cobalt tri-
1
carbonyl nitrosyl, Co(CO) NO. For this purpose, a study of the reac-
tion kinetics involved in the CVD process indicated that the forma-
tion of pure Co occurs in a mass-transport-limited regime above
15. S. W.-K. Choi and R. J. Puddephatt, Chem. Mater., 9, 1191 (1997).
3
1
1
1
6. T. Maruyama and T. Nakai, Appl. Phys. Lett., 59, 1433 (1991).
7. D. K. Liu, U.S. Pat. 5,171,610 (1992).
8. R. S. Dickson, P. Yin, M. Ke, J. Johnson, and G. B. Deacon, Polyhedron, 15, 2237
3
50ЊC. Additionally, systematic studies were implemented to estab-
(1996).
lish functionality curves for the dependence of key film properties,
namely, purity, texture, resistivity, and morphology on critical pro-
cess parameters. These parameters were identified as precursor flow,
hydrogen reactant flow, substrate temperature, and deposition time
19. K. L. Hess, S. W. Zehr, W. H. Cheng, J. Pooladdej, K. D. Buehring, and D. L. Wolf,
J. Cryst. Growth, 93, 576 (1988).
2
2
0. K. L. Hess and S. W. Zehr, U.S. Pat. 5,045,496 (1998).
1. C. J. Smart, S. K. Reynolds, C. L. Stanis, A. Patil, and J. T. Kirleis, Mater. Res. Soc.
Symp. Proc., Vol. 282, p. 229, Materials Research Society, Pittsubrgh, PA (1993).
(
thickness). Subsequent microstructural and microchemical analyses
22. G. J .M. Dormans, G. J. B. M. Meekes, and E. G. J. Starling, J. Cryst. Growth, 114,
64 (1991).
3
identified an optimized process window for the growth of pure Co
with resistivity of 9.0 Ϯ 2.0 ⍀ cm, smooth surface morphology,
and rms surface roughness at or below 10% thick.
2
3. G. A. West and K. W. Beeson, Appl. Phys. Lett., 53, 740 (1988).
4. C. F. Powell, in Vapor Deposition, C. F. Powell, J. H. Oxley, and J. M. Blocher, Jr.,
Editors, p. 249, John Wiley & Sons, New York (1966).
2
2
5. Strem Chemicals, Inc., catalog no. 17 (1997-99).
2
6. M. E. Gross, K. S. Kranz, D. Brasen, and H. Luftman, J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B6,
Acknowledgments
1
548 (1988).
2
7. J. P. Candlin, K. A. Taylor, and D. T. Thompson, Reactions of Transition-Metal
Complexes, Elsevier Publishing Co., New York (1968).
8. G. J. M. Dormans, J. Cryst. Growth, 108, 806 (1991).
The work was supported by the New York State Center for
Advanced Thin Film Technology (CAT), and Gelest, Inc. This sup-
port is gratefully acknowledged.
2
29. T. Maruyama, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., 36, L705 (1997).
3
3
0. Landolt-Börnstein, 6th ed., Vol. 2, Part 2a, p. 49, Springer, Berlin (1960).
1. J. A. Mattern and S. J. Gill, in The Chemistry of the Coordination Compounds, J. C.
Bailar, Jr., Editor, p. 509, Reinhold Publishing Co., New York (1956).
The State University of New York at Albany assisted in meeting the pub-
lication costs of this article.
32. J. L. Roustan, Y. Lijour, and B. A. Morrow, Inorg. Chem., 26, 2509 (1987).