Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:25:34.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surface Modification Energized by FIB: The Influence of Etch Rates & Aspect Ratio on Ripple Wavelengths

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Warren MoberlyChan
Warren MoberlyChan*
Affiliation:
[email protected], Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CMS, L-367, 7000 East Ave., Livermore, CA, 94550-9234, United States, 925-424-2721, 925-423-0785
Get access

Abstract

Ion beams have been used to modify surface topography, producing nanometer-scale modulations (and even subnanometer ripples in this work) that have potential uses ranging from designing self-assembly structures, to controlling stiction of micromachined surfaces, to providing imprint templates for patterned media. Modern computer-controlled Focused Ion Beam tools enable alternating submicron patterned zones of such ion-eroded surfaces, as well as dramatically increasing the rate of ion beam processing. The DualBeam FIB/SEM also expedites process development while minimizing the use of materials that may be precious (Diamond) and/or produce hazardous byproducts (Beryllium). A FIB engineer can prototype a 3-by-3-by-3 matrix of variables in tens of minutes and consume as little as zeptoliters of material; whereas traditional ion beam processing would require tens of days and tens of precious wafers. Saturation wavelengths have been reported for ripples on materials such as single crystal silicon or diamond (∼200nm); however this work achieves wavelengths >400nm on natural diamond. Conversely, Be can provide a stable and ordered 2-dimensional array of <40nm periodicity. Also ripples <0.4nm are fabricated on carbon-base surfaces, and these quantized picostructures are measured by HR-TEM and electron diffraction. Rippling is a function of material, ion beam, and angle; but is also controlled by chemical environment, redeposition, and aspect ratio. Ideally a material has a constant yield (atoms sputtered off per incident ion); however, pragmatic FIB processes, coupled with the direct metrological feedback in a DualBeam tool, reveal etch rates do not remain constant for nanometer-scale processing. Control of rippling requires controlled metrology, and robust software tools are developed to enhance metrology. In situ monitoring of the influence of aspect ratio and redeposition at the micron scale correlates to the rippling fundamentals that occur at the nanometer scale and are controlled by the boundary conditions of FIB processing.

Keywords

ion-beam processingself-assemblynanostructure
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 960: Symposium N – Self Assembly of Nanostructures Aided by Ion- or Photon-Beam Irradiation—Fundamentals and Applications , 2006 , 0960-N10-02-LL06-02
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Sigmund, P., J. Materials Science 8 (1973) 1545–1553.Google Scholar
2. Bradley, R.M. and Harper, J.M.E., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 6 (1988) 2390–2395.Google Scholar
3. Chason, E., et al, Appl Phys Rev. 81(10) (1997) 6513–6561.Google Scholar
4. Mayer, T.M., Chason, E., and Howard, A.J., J. Appl. Phys. 76(3) (1994) 1634.Google Scholar
5. Ichim, S. and Aziz, M.J., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 23 (2005) 1068–1071.Google Scholar
6. Adams, D.P., Aziz, M.J., Hobler, G., MoberlyChan, W.J., Schenkel, T., MRS Bulletin, in press (2007).Google Scholar
7. Six, H. & Moberly, W., LMSC Report on Optimizing PHI-595 Ion Scan Pattern (1981).Google Scholar
8. Bravman, J. & Moberly, W., unpublished work altering Gatan Ion Mill for NiTi TEM Samples (1986).Google Scholar
9. Carter, G., J. Appl. Phys. 85(1) (1999) 455–459.Google Scholar
10. Datta, A., Wu, Y.R., and Wang, Y.L., Phys. Rev. B 63 (2001) 125407.Google Scholar
11. Adams, D.P., Vasile, M.J., Mayer, T.M., & Hodges, V.C., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 21 (2003) 2334–2343.Google Scholar
12. Russell, P.E., et al, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 16(4) (1998) 2494–2498.Google Scholar
13. MoberlyChan, W.J., Felter, T.E., and Wall, M.A., Microscopy Today, Nov. (2006).Google Scholar
14. Computer program Kalypso, www.geocities.com/karolewski/kalypso.com.Google Scholar