4.6 Article

Characterizations of pulsed chemical vapor deposited-tungsten thin films for ultrahigh aspect ratio W-plug process

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 152, 期 6, 页码 C408-C417

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/1.1897355

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tungsten (W) thin films were deposited using a modified chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process, called pulsed CVD, and the film properties were characterized as nucleation layers for a W-plug fill process. In this study, the deposition stage is composed of four steps, resulting in one deposition cycle: (i) reaction of WF6 with SiH4, (ii) inert gas purge, (iii) SiH4 exposure, and (iv) inert gas purge. The W growth per cycle was extremely linear with a growth rate of similar to 1.32 nm/ cycle at 400 degrees C. The growth rate was further enhanced to 1.5-1.9 nm/cycle by increasing the SiH4 flow rate in the first step and/or by adding H-2 in the first and the third steps. The W film deposited by pulsed CVD showed a much lower roughness (similar to 0.7 nm) and a better conformality at the contact holes with an aspect ratio of 14, compared to W films deposited by conventional CVD using WF6 and SiH4. The film resistivity was closely related with its phase (body-centered cubic alpha-W or primitive cubic beta-W) and microstructure characterized by grain size as well as the film thickness (the size effect). Transmission electron microscopy analysis showed that H-2 addition into the first and third steps increased the grain size from similar to 7 to similar to 13 nm and prevented the film from forming a b-W phase with high resistivity, resulting in a lower resistivity of 100 mu Omega-cm compared to that of the W film deposited without H-2 addition (210 mu Omega-cm). H-2 addition was also effective in reducing the F and Si impurities in the films. Finally, the film resistivity was discussed on the basis of impurity, roughness, microstructure, and film phase. (c) 2005 The Electrochemical Society. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据