Special Issue Article
Effects of deep reactive ion etching parameters on etching rate and surface morphology in extremely deep silicon etch process with high aspect ratio
Advances in Mechanical Engineering 2017, Vol. 9(12) 1–19 Ó The Author(s) 2017 DOI: 10.1177/1687814017738152 journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
Tiantong Xu1, Zhi Tao1,2,3, Hanqing Li4, Xiao Tan1 and Haiwang Li1,2,3
Abstract This study empirically investigates the influences of several parameters on surface morphology and etch rate in a high-aspect-ratio silicon etching process. Two function formulas were obtained, revealing the relationship between the controlled parameters and the etching results. All the experiments were conducted on an inductively coupled plasma system, using a Bosch process. The tested trenches’ width ranged from 15 to 1500 mm and their depth ranged from 50 to 500 mm, which covers nearly all the typical sizes of micromechanical devices in practical applications. The controlled parameters are etching chamber pressure, bias power, and gas flow rate. The parameters of surface morphology include sidewall angle, surface roughness, and sidewall condition. We tested how the controlled parameters can influence the surface morphology and etch rate and formulated assumptions to explain those relationships. Meanwhile, we utilized linear regression to obtain experiential function formulas of the relationships among etch depth, structure width, etching time, and passivation time, with a correlation coefficient higher than 0.99. Using these formulas, 12-mm-wide and 377-mm-deep (aspect ratio 31.4) trenches with sidewall angles of 89° were achieved. Additionally, this experience was applied as a critical structure in a gas turbine structure system. Keywords High-aspect-ratio silicon etch, surface morphology, silicon etch rate, deep reactive ion etching, empirical function formula
Date received: 28 March 2017; accepted: 27 September 2017 Handling Editor: Kuei Hu Chang
Introduction Micro-electronic-mechanical-system (MEMS) technology originated in the two-dimensional (2D) circuit fabrication process during the 1970s. In recent years, ‘‘lab on a chip’’ has become one of the newest and most important trends in MEMS technology. It has been widely applied in many crucial areas such as medical instruments, inspection and quarantine, and environmental monitoring. This technique requires integrating more and more single microdevices into one complex micro system, to accomplish various complex functions.
1
National Key Laboratory of Science and Technology on Aero-Engines Aero-Thermodynamics, Beihang University, Beijing, China 2 The Collaborative Innovation Center for Advanced Aero-Engine of China, Beihang University, Beijing, China 3 Aircraft/Engine Integrated System Safety Beijing Key Laboratory, Beijing, China 4 Microsystems Technology Laboratories, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA Corresponding author: Haiwang Li, The Collaborative Innovation Center for Advanced AeroEngine of China, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China. Email:
[email protected]
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/ open-access-at-sage).
2 The trend of microdevice integration forces every device structure to be more compactable, which means microdevices should not only be more precise in two dimensions but also need to expand into the third dimension, resulting in the demand for high-aspect-ratio structures. For example, a structure with a higher aspect ratio can help improve the accuracy of acceleration sensors. Also, throttles in a micro-engine ordinarily require the aspect ratio to be higher than 20 to achieve a throttling effect that creates enough stiffness. Currently, the high-aspect-ratio silicon etching (HARSE) process is the most common method to create a three-dimensional (3D) structure for a microdevice. Using HARSE can create through silicon via (TSV) and deep cavities. This process, together with the multi-wafer bonding technique, could substantially make up for the deficiency of MEMS technology. For microelectrical devices such as memory devices and integrated circuits (ICs),1–3 some high-aspect-ratio structures have been achieved in recent years, including 250-nm-wide/40-mm-deep ones (an aspect ratio of 160)4 and 90-nm-wide/7-mm-deep ones (an aspect ratio around 80)5 structures. On the other hand, there is also demand for micromechanical devices with high aspect ratios, such as micro sensors, micro pumps, and micro engines. However, unlike ICs or memory devices in which the trench width is on the submicron-scale, the width of trenches in micromechanical devices is between 10 and 1000 mm.6 This means it requires an etch of several hundred microns to meet the aspect ratio demands in micromechanical device fabrication. Nevertheless, when the silicon etching reaches a depth of more than 200 mm, problems such as etching stop, poor sidewall angles, and damage to the surfaces of the sidewall and bottom appear. Therefore, it is urgent to investigate and solve the problem of how to acquire a HARSE structure with a high etch rate and good surface morphology. Currently, there are several different methods to acquire structures with high aspect ratios, such as the wet process, cryogenic process, mixed gas process, and Bosch process.7 In the wet process, both acid and an alkaline solution can be used to etch silicon. However, acid solution etching is isotropic and an alkaline solution has a limitation in its orientation dependence, which leads to the inability to fabricate certain kinds of round structures such as deep round grooves.7 The cryogenic process has strict requirements for wall conditions, gas flows, and reaction temperatures. Moreover, the etch rate is very low, and the photoresist may crack during the prolonged process.8 For the gas mixture process, which involves mixing SF6/C4F8 or other etching and passivation gases such as SF6/CHF3, the low selectivity between the silicon and the photoresist (4:1) and the low etching rate (150 nm/min) are the two main shortcomings.9,10 Compared to the above three
Advances in Mechanical Engineering methods, the Bosch process has been more widely used in the fabrication of HARSE structures in recent years. It is a time-multiplexed process which uses gaseous SF6 for etching and gaseous C4F8 for passivation. Its most notable merits include a high etching rate (up to 5 mm/min), high selectivity in the photoresist-mask process, and the fact that it can be conducted at room temperature.11 Moreover, the excellent reproducibility of the process among different silicon wafers shows that it has good process stability. The performance of the Bosch process can be affected by many parameters, such as the gas flow rate, etching chamber pressure, temperature, bias power, and the duration of the etching period and passivation period. Obviously, changing these parameters will lead to variations in etching depth, etching rate, sidewall angle, and sidewall damage to the structure. There are three important parameters in deep reactive ion etching (DRIE): the etching rate, the sidewall angle, and the sidewall damage. A high etching rate is always a high priority, since it can save time and cost in the etching process and can enhance the possibility of mass production within this process. An extremely vertical sidewall or a precisely controlled sidewall angle of the etching structure can ensure good performance in some microdevices. Sidewall damage to the etching structure can be an intolerable threat to the structural strength of devices. This damage, unlike sidewall roughness which appears as continuous tiny scallops on the sidewall, is marked by irregular and non-uniform defects.12 Chen13 believed that to achieve the high strength of a structure, fine surface quality is requisite. Many studies have focused on how certain parameters influence the etching result. However, most previous works emphasized small-scale etching structures for the IC industry; research on high aspect ratios in large-scale structures (width between 15 and 1500 mm and depth between 50 and 500 mm) is rare. Similarly, there has been little discussion about finding the relationship between the controlled parameters and the etching results. In this article, we investigate the influence of several controlled parameters during the HARSE, including chamber pressure, bias power, and gas flow rate, on the etching rate, sidewall angle, and sidewall condition of the etching structures. Additionally, we expect to reveal some relationship and to obtain some experimental function formulas among the controlled parameters and etching results, which are rarely seen in the previous work.
Experimental design Lithographic methods Single-side polished, P-type, \1,0,0., four-inch silicon wafers with a thickness of 525 mm were used in the
Xu et al. experiment. First, the silicon wafers were coated with a positive photoresist (AZ4620) at the speed of 2000 r/min for 50 s, to make the photoresist reach a thickness of around 9 mm. Second, the coated wafers were prebaked on hot plates at a temperature of 110°C for 100 s. Third, the photoresist was exposed under a BG-406S Double Side Mask Aligner (produced by China Electronics Technology Group Corporation), at the power density of 7.2 mW/cm2 for 87.5 s. Finally, the wafers were developed in AZ400K solution for 4 min and re-baked on the hot plates at a temperature of 100°C for another 60 s. The total etched area was fixed during all the tests. All the samples were patterned with the same mask, and the total exposed area was about 20% of the whole surface.
Etching conditions This silicon etching process was conducted in an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) etching system manufactured by Surface Technology System Ltd (STS), using a Bosch process. In a Bosch process, the plasma is generated by an electric field, induced by a time-varying field from the applied radiofrequency (RF) power to the coil.14 A complete Bosch process contains many cycles, each comprising two periods: the etching period and the passivation period. During the passivation period, C4F8 gas is used to generate polymer materials on the sidewalls and bottom, as a passivation layer which will block chemical reactions between the silicon and SF6 gas during the etching period. During etching, SF6/O2 gas is excited and turned into ions by the RF coil, and then the ions are accelerated to bombard the passivation layer at the bottom. The polymer materials at the bottom are removed by this ion bombardment, and the silicon is etched by the chemicals reacting with
3 the F ions. Consequently, the anisotropic sidewalls of the etching structures are formed by the continuous rotation of the alternant periods of etching and passivation.15 In these tests, the etching plasma was generated and accelerated by two RF power sources with a frequency of 13.56 MHz. The source power was fixed at 600 W to create plasma from reactive gas. The bias power ranged from 15 to 35 W to accelerate the ions bombarding the surface of the wafers. The gas flow rate was controlled by automatic mass flow controllers (MFCs). SF6/O2 mixed gas was used as the etching gas and C4F8 gas was used for passivation. Each wafer was fixed on a chuck by an electrostatic clamp with helium to cool down its backside. The helium kept the platen and the backside of the wafers at a temperature of 25°C. The chamber, cooled by two mechanical fans, was controlled at a temperature of 40°C. The chamber was pumped by a turbo-molecular pump, and the pressure in it was controlled by an automatic pressure control (APC) valve, to stay between 20 and 50 mTorr in the etching period and 19 mTorr in the passivation period. Wafer transfer was conducted through a load-lock chamber to protect the reactor chamber from being directly exposed to the atmosphere. The basic structure of the ICP etching system is shown in Figure 1.
Experimental setup The experiment was divided into two main parts. In the first part, we intended to investigate how the controlled parameters influence etching trenches on the micro scale. The width of the examined etching trenches ranged from 15 to 1500 mm, while the depth ranged from 50 to 200 mm. This range covers most of the normal
Figure 1. Basic structure of the ICP etching system. This picture is from the following website: http://www.chinabaike.com/t/9517/2014/0316/1916098.html.
4
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Table 1. Parameters of different etching process recipes in experiment 1. Recipe
Bias power (W)
Etching pressure (mTorr)
SF6 flow (sccm)
O2 flow ( sccm)
C4F8 flow ( sccm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15 25 35 15 15 15 15 15 15
30 30 30 20 50 30 30 30 30
130 130 130 130 130 110 150 130 130
13 13 13 13 13 11 15 13 13
85 85 85 85 85 85 85 70 100
Table 2. Detailed changed parameters in a series of etching process recipes. No ramping recipes Recipe number Total cycles Etching periods (s) Passivation periods (s)
1 313 8 6
2 276 8 5
3 479 8 6.5
4 158 10 8
8 390 8–9 5
9 562 8–9 5
10 335 8–10 5
11 500 8 6–4.5
5 100 9 8
6 100 9 7
7 100 8 7
Ramping recipes Recipe number Total cycles Etching periods (s) Passivation periods (s)
Ramping recipes means that the time of either etching or passivation period during a cycle is not constant; it changes slightly between the recipes.
sizes of micromechanical devices.6 Four controlled parameters were carefully controlled and investigated: etching bias power, chamber pressure, gas flow rate of SF6, and gas flow rate of C4F8. The etching rate, sidewall angle, and sidewall damage were all measured and compared in detail. Other experimental parameters were fixed. More precisely, the source power was fixed at 600 W, the chamber pressure during the passivation period was 19 mTorr, the chamber temperature was 40°C, the platen temperature was 25°C, and all the recipes contained 200 cycles (about 43 min) with 8 s in the etching period and 5 s in the passivation period during each cycle. The ICP machine we used in this research cannot monitor the substrate’s temperature. However, during the tests helium gas cooled the backside of the wafer and the temperature of the attached platen, keeping them stable at 25°C during the whole process. In addition, the AZ4620 photoresist, which covered the wafer’s surface, will burn when the temperature reaches 100°C. It survived during the etching, indicating that the top side of the wafer was less than 100°C, so we assumed that the wafer substrate’s temperature was around 25°C. Detailed parameters which varied in each recipe are shown in Table 1. During our experiment, nine different types of etching recipes were conducted, each of which was tested on three individual silicon wafers on separate days. The results show that the STS ICP
system has excellent repeatability. An average number of repeated experimental results was used in the analysis given in section ‘‘Results and discussion,’’ to reduce the environmental impacts. In the second part of the experiment, we sought to identify the relationship among the controlled parameters and the etching results. Based on the results of Experiment 1 and previous attempts, we fixed the etching bias power at 15 W, the etching chamber pressure at 30 mTorr, the SF6 gas flow rate at 130 sccm, the O2 gas flow rate at 13 sccm (in the etching period), and the C4F8 gas flow rate at 85 sccm (in the passivation period), to obtain relatively good results. Other parameters were controlled as follows: the source power was 600 W, the passivation chamber pressure was 19 mTorr, the chamber temperature was 40°C, and the platen temperature was 25°C. This time, the etching or passivation time in each cycle and the number of cycles were diverse in different recipes. The detailed parameters of these recipes are shown in Table 2. Ramping recipes (etching or passivation time in each cycle changed slightly between different recipes) were used to achieve a range of etching structures, with the depth going from 50 to 450 mm and the sidewall angles from 87° to 94°. We gathered data from the results of these recipes and used the linear regression method to manipulate the data. We expected to obtain a potential relationship between the controlled parameters and the
Xu et al.
5
Figure 2. (a) SEM cross section of 6-mm-wide trenches, etched by bias power of 15, 25, and 35 W, respectively. Other conditions remain constant, both here and in the following figures. (b) SEM cross section of 25-mm-wide trenches, etched by bias power of 15, 25, and 35 W, respectively. (c) SEM cross section of 110-mm-wide trenches, etched by bias power of 15, 25, and 35 W, respectively.
trenches’ figure from these data, which would likely lead to a quick and cheap manufacturing process in the future. All etching results were measured and evaluated using a Zeiss EVO18 Special Edition scanning electron microscope (SEM) and a Think Focus CL3-MG140 confocal displacement sensor.
Results and discussion In section ‘‘Effects of controlled parameters on etching rate and sidewall morphology,’’ we investigate how the controlled parameters, specifically the bias power, chamber pressure, flow rate of SF6 gas, and flow rate of C4F8 gas, influence the etching trenches’ morphology, in terms of the etching rate, sidewall angle, and sidewall damage. Section ‘‘Experiential function formula’’ will put forward two experiential function formulas about the relationship between the ICP-controlled parameters and the etching structure morphology.
Effects of controlled parameters on etching rate and sidewall morphology Effects of bias power. In this section, the influences of bias power on the etching rate, sidewall angle, and sidewall quality of the trenches are investigated. Cross-sectional pictures of the etching results are shown in
Figure 3. Etching rates under three bias power levels, in trenches with different widths.
Figure 2. The widths of the tested trenches ranged from 6 to 500 mm. Generally, in the ICP etching system, the bias power was applied by an electrostatic chuck to control the energy of ions when they bombard the wafer’s surface. The bias power is thought to determine the intensity of the ions bombing the silicon wafer.16 In Figure 3, the etching rates under different bias power levels are compared. The etching rate increases from 2.05 to
6 2.24 mm/min in the 6-mm-wide trenches when the bias power rises from 15 to 35 W. Under the same experimental condition, a more obvious rise from 2.97 to 3.61 mm/min can be seen in the 110-mm-wide trenches. Hence, we can conclude that under a certain condition, with the higher energy of the ions being produced by higher bias power, the bombardment phenomenon at the bottom of the trenches becomes more significant and leads to an increase in the etching rate. However, as can also be seen in Figure 3, there is no significant difference between the etching rates when the bias power ranges from 25 to 35 W, which means that the etching rate is not always positively correlated to bias power in all intervals. The etching rate when the bias power is 25 W is slightly lower than that of 35 W when the trenches are narrower than 15 mm, but in wider trenches the opposite is true. This phenomenon could be explained by the fact that the ions’ energy increases with an increase in the bias power (from 25 to 35 W, for example), and the bombardment between the reactive gas plasma becomes more intense and complex, which results in a decrease in the uniformity of the ions. This nonuniformity makes more plasma bombard the sidewall before reaching the bottom during the etching cycle. Parts of the polymer materials which were deposited during the previous passivation cycle will be sputtered away from the sidewall by these nonnormal ions. The sputtered polymer materials will redeposit onto the surface at a deeper location, which forms a much thicker polymer film and slows down the etching rate. Therefore, in Figure 3 when the trench is narrow, the etching rate is higher when the bias power is higher, because the polymer materials have mostly redeposited on the sidewall and do not influence the reactive plasma etching the bottom silicon. Meanwhile, when the trenches become wider, more polymer materials will redeposit on the bottom surface and slow down the etching rate, which causes the etching rate of 25 W to surpass that of 35 W when the width of the trenches is bigger than 15 mm. Another phenomenon that needs to be clarified is why the silicon grass begins to form at the bottom with the increase in bias power in some large-scale trenches, as shown in Figure 2(c). There is evidence that high bias power will cause polymer materials to redeposit at the bottom surface and form many micro masks, which stop these covered parts from being etched and thus causes silicon grass. As for the sidewall angle, in this article we posit that the angle is more than 90° if the top is wider than the bottom of the trench. As shown in Figure 4, the angle decreases while the bias power increases. For the trenches with a width around 6 mm, the sidewall angle decreases from 90.3° to 89.7° when the bias power rises from 15 to 35 W. A similar phenomenon can be seen in the 110-mm-wide trench, with the sidewall angle
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 4. Sidewall angle under three bias power levels, in trenches with different widths.
declining from 89.2° to 88.5°. This indicates that the anisotropy is more obvious when the bias power increases. Moreover, gradually enhancing the bombardment with an increase in bias power causes some serious damage to the sidewall as well. That damage will influence the smoothness of the sidewall and cause a ‘‘wave’’ morphology, which will affect the performance of MEMS devices. In Figure 5, some obvious sidewall damage can be seen in the trenches etched at a bias power of 35 W. As the bias power increases, the uniformity of the ions decreases. This is caused by the fact that some plasmas bombard the sidewall before reaching the bottom during the etching cycle. On the upper side of the trench’s sidewall, the polymer materials of the deposition layer, along with some silicon, are partly removed by the bombardment of the ions, which leads to a rapid expansion of the trench’s width. On the lower parts of the sidewall, the sputtered polymer materials will redeposit onto the sidewall and form new deposition layers, which makes it thicker than the layers on the upper sidewalls. Several intense redeposition functions generated by high bias power may again shrink the width of the lower parts of the trenches, which also facilitates sidewall damage. Effects of chamber pressure. Compared with bias power, it seems that the pressure in the etching chamber influences the profile of etching structures in a more complex way. Generally, the chamber pressure determines two basic elements in silicon etching: the density of the F atoms and the energy of the ion flux. For example, when the pressure is low, the ions receive very little resistance when being accelerated before they reach the target. So the ion flux is high and the ion bombardment is intense, but the etching will be limited by the
Xu et al.
7
Figure 5. (a) SEM cross section of 6-mm-wide trenches, etched by bias power levels of 15 and 35 W, respectively. Sidewall damage can be seen in the 35 W trenches. (b) SEM cross section of 55-mm-wide trenches, etched by bias power levels of 15 and 35 W, respectively. Sidewall damage can be seen in the 35 W trenches. (c) SEM cross section of 110-mm-wide trenches, etched by bias power levels of 15 and 35 W, respectively. Sidewall damage can be seen in the 35 W trenches.
availability of the F atoms.17 We applied three different chamber pressures (20, 30, and 50 mTorr) to etch the trenches, the width of which varied from 6 to 110 mm. The cross-sectional pictures of the etching results are shown in Figure 6. For the etching rate, under the condition where the pressure is high, there will be enough fluorine radicals for a chemical reaction with silicon. However, the bombardment of the etching surface is correspondingly weakened as the ion energy decreases. Hence, when other conditions remain the same, there should exist the best chamber pressure to make the etching rate reach its peak. As shown in Figure 7, for the 6-mm-wide trenches, the etching rate reaches its peak value of 2.05 mm/min when the pressure is 30 mTorr, and the etching rates are 1.72 and 1.14 mm/min at pressure levels of 20 and 50 mTorr, respectively. In the 110-mm-wide trenches, the same phenomenon can be found as well: the etching rate at 30 mTorr of pressure is 2.97 mm/min, higher than the rates at 20 and 50 mTorr. The lack of fluorine radicals is the main reason for this result: they restrict the etching
rate when the pressure is low (20 mTorr), while the low bombard energy limits the fluorine radicals to etching the bottom of the trenches when the pressure is high (50 mTorr). The same trend held with the 25- and 110mm-wide trenches. Typically, the etching nearly stops under 50 mTorr of pressure when the depth approaches 70 mm in the 25- and 110-mm-wide trenches, since the energy of the ion flux is too low to reach there. Without enough ions bombarding the bottom, the etching will create a large amount of silicon grass and eventually stop, as shown in Figure 6(b) and (c). For narrow trenches, in which it will be more difficult for the ions to reach the bottom, this phenomenon is more serious. So at around 50 mm deep in the 6-mm-wide trenches, the etching stops. As for sidewall angle, as shown in Figure 8, the sidewall angle decreases with a decrease in chamber pressure. For example, the sidewall angle is 91.1° under 50 mTorr, 89.1° under 30 mTorr, and 88.2° under 20 mTorr. Low chamber pressure means less resistance to the ions’ acceleration and more uniformity among
8
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 6. (a) SEM cross section of 6-mm-width trenches, etched under pressure of 20, 30, and 50 mTorr, respectively. (b) SEM cross section of 25-mm-wide trenches, etched under pressure of 20, 30, and 50 mTorr, respectively. (c) SEM cross section of 110-mm-wide trenches etched under pressure of 20, 30, and 50 mTorr, respectively.
Figure 7. Etching rates under three chamber pressures, in trenches with different widths.
Figure 8. Sidewall angle under three chamber pressures, in trenches with different widths.
the ions. This enhances the bombardment at the bottom of the trenches, just like the result for improving the bias power. As the chamber pressure increases, the profile of the trenches tends to be more tapered and the sidewall damage becomes more apparent.18 The energy of the
ion flux will decrease and the number of fluorine radicals will increase with rising pressure, which leads to countless uncertain ion collisions happening as the ions are accelerated from the gas inlet to the wafer. This severely affects the uniformity of the ions. Nonuniformity means that some ions will attack the
Xu et al.
9
Figure 9. (a) SEM cross section of 6-mm-wide trenches, etched under pressure levels of 20 and 50 mTorr, respectively. (b) SEM cross section of 110-mm-wide trenches, etched under pressure levels of 20 and 50 mTorr, respectively.
sidewall of the trenches, leading to polymer removal in some spots, which eventually creates sidewall damage. In Figure 9, the trenches etched at high pressure have more obvious sidewall damage than those etched at low pressure, in both wide and narrow trenches. Basically, sidewall conditions are better under lower chamber pressure, but a decrease in chamber pressure will also severely influence the etching rate. So it seems that a chamber pressure of around 30 mTorr during etching can reach the balance of a good sidewall surface as well as an acceptable etching rate. Effects of SF6 flow rate. In an ICP etching system, SF6 gas plays an important role in the high-aspect-ratio etching process since it is the source of the chemical reactive substance. We etched trenches with different widths under three separate SF6 flow rates—110, 130, and 150 sccm, respectively—and the results are shown in Figure 10. Since the bias power produces fluorine radicals from SF6 gas, and accelerates them to impact the surface of the wafer to generate physical and chemical reactions with silicon, it seems to be obvious that the etching rate is in direct proportion to the SF6 flow rate, because a higher SF6 flow rate can produce more F ions. This is partly true as shown in Figure 11: when the SF6 flow rate is 130 sccm, the etching rate is 2.05 mm/min in 6-mm-wide trenches and 2.98 mm/min in 110-mm-wide trenches, higher than 1.88 mm/min in 6-mm-wide trenches and 2.88 mm/min in 110-mm-wide trenches rates when the SF6 flow rate is 110 sccm. However, when the SF6 flow rate is 150 sccm, the etching rate is not higher than the rates at 110 or
130 sccm. On the contrary, the etching rate for 150 sccm SF6 gas flow is lower than both other conditions. As the density of fluorine radicals increases, more bombardment will happen among the F ions themselves as they are accelerated, leading the etching to be more isotropic, with more SF6 ions sputtering on the sidewall of the trenches.19 In conclusion, when the flow rate of SF6 is higher than some particular amount, the increased density of the fluorine radicals would become an obstacle to the etching process. So there should exist the best rate for SF6 flow to make the etching rate reach its peak. Based on our results, this rate should be between 110 and 150 sccm, but more experiments should be conducted to find the exact rate. Figure 12 shows how the SF6 flow rate can influence the sidewall angle. When the SF6 flow rates are 110 and 130 sccm, the two lines are very close, but the trenches in the 150 sccm SF6 flow rate always have a higher sidewall angle. This is because when the SF6 is under 130 sccm, the sidewall is protected by enough polymer material to prevent it from being etched. However, when the SF6 flow rate is 150 sccm, more SF6 ions result in a more isotropic etching in the trenches, as explained in the previous section. More SF6 ions sputter on the sidewall which makes the upper parts of the sidewall become etched more seriously than the lower parts and leads to an increased sidewall angle. This phenomenon is more obvious in narrow trenches: when the SF6 flow rate is 150 sccm, the sidewall angle is 91.5° in 6-mm-wide trenches, while the sidewall angle stays around 90.7° when the SF6 flow rate is 110 or 130 sccm.
10
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 10. (a) SEM cross section of 6-mm-wide trenches when the flow rates of SF6 gas are 110, 130, and 150 sccm, respectively. (b) SEM cross section of 25-mm-wide trenches when the flow rates of SF6 gas are 110, 130, and 150 sccm, respectively. (c) SEM cross section of 110-mm-wide trenches when the flow rates of SF6 gas are 110, 130, and 150 sccm, respectively.
Figure 11. Etching rates based on the flow rate of SF6, in trenches with different widths.
Figure 12. Sidewall angles based on the flow rates of SF6 in trenches with different widths.
As for the quality of sidewalls, since the polymer is thick enough to protect the sidewall when the flow rate of SF6 is 110 or 130 sccm, there is not any obvious damage on the sidewalls of the trenches. For the trenches where the SF6 flow rate is 150 sccm, several damaged spots can be found on the sidewalls of the narrow
trenches. It can be presumed that the sidewalls of the narrow trenches are the most difficult parts for polymer formation during the passivation cycle, as shown in Figure 13(a) and (b). An excessively low SF6 flow rate is bad for reaching the ideal etching rate, while an excessively high flow
Xu et al.
11
Figure 13. (a) SEM cross section of 10-mm-wide trenches, etched with SF6 flow rates of 130 and 150 sccm, respectively. (b) SEM cross section of 15-mm-wide trenches, etched with SF6 flow rates of 130 and 150 sccm, respectively.
rate is not good for either the etching rate or the sidewall quality. So there is an optimum value for the SF6 flow rate to achieve the best trench morphology, which is around 130 sccm in this experiment.
Effects of the C4F8 flow rate. C4F8 gas is used to react with silicon and generate the polymer materials. The polymer materials serve as a passivation layer to protect the silicon from being etched by SF6 gas in the ICP etching system. Three recipes with C4F8 flow rates of 70, 85, and 100 sccm were processed separately to examine the flow rate’s influence on etching rate, sidewall angle, and sidewall damage. Cross-sectional pictures of the results are shown in Figure 14. The etching rate reaches a peak when the flow rate of C4F8 is 85 sccm, as shown in Figure 15. When it increases to 100 sccm, more polymer materials are deposited on the bottom of the trenches during the passivation cycle. That means it will take more time for F atoms to remove this passivation layer before they can finally etch the silicon below it. So the etching rate declines when the C4F8 flow rate is higher than 85 sccm. On the other hand, the etching rate also decreases when the C4F8 flow rate declines from 85 to 70 sccm. This could be because the reduction in C4F8 gas leads to a thinner passivation layer than usual on the sidewall. During the etching process, the passivation layer will be consumed quickly and expose the silicon on the sidewall. When this happens, the fluorine radicals will react with some silicon on the sidewall, so there will not be sufficient F ions reaching the bottom. This
phenomenon will weaken the vertical etching, which leads to a decrease in the etching rate. This can be proved by the fact that in Figure 16, the sidewall angle at a C4F8 flow rate of 70 sccm is much smaller than those at higher C4F8 flow rates, which indicates that some of the F atoms have been consumed on the sidewall. We also considered how the C4F8 flow rate affects the sidewall angle. Previously, we have revealed that it would be difficult to deposit polymer materials on narrow trenches’ sidewalls, especially the lower part of narrow trenches. Therefore, with the bias power accelerating the F ions to bombard the bottom of the trenches, the passivation layers on the bottom and lower sidewall will be consumed more quickly than the upper sidewall. Therefore, the lower parts will be wider than the upper parts. This can be observed in Figure 16: the sidewall angle of the trenches when the flow rate of C4F8 is 70 sccm is obviously lower than that for 85 and 100 sccm, especially in narrow trenches, while the sidewall angles are nearly the same between these two groups, because both the sidewalls are sufficiently protected by the polymer materials. There is no apparent sidewall damage when the flow rate of C4F8 is 85 and 100 sccm, as the sidewalls have been sufficiently protected by the passivation layer. And only a little damage can be detected on the sidewall when the flow rate of C4F8 is 70 sccm, as shown in Figure 17(a) and (b), because the passivation layers are thinner with the decrease in the C4F8 gas flow rate. To summarize, there is also a best C4F8 flow rate, which is around 85 sccm in our experiment, which can
12
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 14. (a) SEM cross section of 6-mm-wide trenches when the flow rates of C4F8 gas are 70, 85, and 100 sccm, respectively. (b) SEM cross section of 25-mm-wide trenches when the flow rates of C4F8 gas are 70, 85, and 100 sccm, respectively. (c) SEM cross section of 110-mm-wide trenches when the flow rates of C4F8 gas are 70, 85, and 100 sccm, respectively.
Figure 15. Etching rates, based on the flow rates of C4F8 in trenches with different widths.
Figure 16. Sidewall angles, based on the flow rate of C4F8 in trenches with different widths.
achieve relatively good sidewall conditions as well as a high etching rate. Based on the above discussion, we can conclude that in the HARSE process with SF6/O2 plasma as an etching reactive gas and C4F8 plasma as a passivation reactive gas, changes in parameters such as bias power, etching pressure, SF6 flow rate, and C4F8
flow rate could influence the etching results, particularly the etching rate, sidewall angle, sidewall damage, and other features of the structures. Bias power influences the intensity of the ions being bombarded. Higher bias power usually causes more serious bombardment; therefore, increasing bias power
Xu et al.
13
Figure 17. (a) SEM cross section of 6-mm-wide trenches when the flow rates of C4F8 are 85 and 70 sccm, respectively. (b) SEM cross section of 15-mm-wide trenches when the flow rates of C4F8 are 85 and 70 sccm, respectively. (c) SEM cross section of 110-mm-wide trenches when the flow rates of C4F8 are 85 and 70 sccm, respectively.
induces a higher etching rate. Meanwhile, higher bias power decreases the sidewall angle and makes the sidewall damage more serious. Chamber pressure influences the density of atoms and the energy of the ion flux. High pressure during the etching period usually leads to a low density of F atoms and sufficient energy of the ion flux. In the experimental condition, the best etching pressure is found to be 30 mTorr, which results in the highest etching rate and the best sidewall angle. When the etching pressure increases above that level, the sidewall damage becomes more serious. SF6 gas flow rate determines the total amount of fluorine radicals, and the etching rate will increase at higher SF6 flow rates. However, when the SF6 flow rate exceeds a certain amount, the etching will be more isotropic and decrease the etching rate. The etching rate has a peak when the SF6 flow rate is 130 sccm. Nonetheless, sidewall angle decreases when SF6 flow rate becomes higher and the sidewall damage becomes worse. C4F8 gas will obstruct the silicon being etched. The etching rate also experiences an up and down trend at various C4F8 flow rates, but reaches its peak at
85 sccm. Meanwhile, with an increasing C4F8 flow rate, the sidewall angle rises and the damage to the sidewall declines, just opposite to the trend with SF6. Table 3 lists the changes in the etching rate, sidewall angle, and sidewall damage caused by bias power, etching pressure, SF6 flow rate, and C4F8 flow rate.
Experiential function formula In a large proportion of micromechanical devices, the width of typical structures ranges from 10 to 1500 mm, while the depth ranges from 10 to 500 mm. Furthermore, the DRIE process may occupy most of the time in the device’s entire fabrication process. To improve the efficiency of the fabrication, finding a quick method to acquire a suitable and appropriate etching recipe is significant. In this section, we intend to find the relationship among several crucial parameters in the etching recipe and construct a function formula, which may help save time and money in practice. As discussed above, a series of etching recipes were conducted and examined carefully, aiming to obtain
14
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Table 3. Overall parameter trends in a series of etching process recipes.
Etching rate Sidewall angle Sidewall damage
Bias power
Etching pressure
SF6 flow rate
C4F8 flow rate
" # "
"# " "
"# " "
"# " #
" indicates a positive correlation, # indicates a negative correlation, "# means the relationship is first positive and then negative after the peak, and #" means the relationship is first negative and then positive after the bottom.
etching structures with widths between 10 and 1000 mm and depths between 50 and 500 mm. The effects of etching pressure, bias power, SF6 flow rate, and C4F8 flow rate were discussed in earlier sections, and it is clear that some parameter data are inappropriate to the HARSE process since they may lead to a bad profile for the trench, such as when the etching pressure is 50 mTorr and when the bias power is 35 W. To make the trenches result in good morphology, and to make the relationship between etching process parameters and basic morphological parameters more practical, all the parameters are fixed at a certain value based on the results described above. This time, the source power was fixed at 600 W, the bias power at 15 W, the etching chamber pressure at 30 mTorr, the passivation chamber pressure at 19 mTorr, the chamber temperature at 40°C, SF6/O2 gas flow rates at 130 sccm/ 13 sccm in the etching period, and C4F8 gas flow rate at 85 sccm in the passivation period. Meanwhile, etching time and passivation time varied during a single cycle and across the number of total cycles in different recipes. Thus, we can focus on the relationship among the crucially controlled parameters (e.g. total etching time and passivation time) and basic morphological parameters (e.g. the width and depth of etching structures). Detailed parameters of these recipes can be seen in Table 2 in the experiment section. A range of structures with depth ranging from 50 to 450 mm and sidewall angles ranging from 87° to 94° were achieved according to these recipes.
In all, 62 data points were used to build the function formula equation for depth–width ratios above 1.25, while another 66 data points were used to form the equation for depth–width ratios below 1.25. Using the linear regression method, the experiential function formulas for the relationship among those four main parameters are shown in equations (1) and (2). In both equations, H represents the depth parameter (mm), W represents the width parameter (mm/100), E is the total etching time (s/1000), and D is the total passivation time (s/1000)
Experiential formula for the depth of the etching structure. In the experiment, four main parameters were found to be the most crucial in the recipe: etching time, passivation time, the width of the trenches, and the depth of the trenches. We investigated these four parameters further and discovered some potential relationships among them. One significant phenomenon is that the etch rate would be independent of the width of trenches when the depth–width ratio is lower than 1.25. So we divide this relationship into two parts, one when the depth– width ratio is lower than 1.25 and the other is when it is higher than 1.25.
Equation (2) is suitable when the structure’s depth– width ratio is below 1.25, the trench width is from 10 to 1500 mm, and the depth is from 50 to 500 mm. The correlation coefficients of these two function formulas are 0.9984 and 0.9997, respectively. We believe this formula provides a quick method to find an appropriate processing recipe when the trench in the silicon etching process is from 15 to 1500 mm in width and 50–500 mm in depth. Trenches at this scale usually meet the demands of micromechanical structures (sidewall angles between 87° and 94°). Using this equation, it will be much easier to estimate the depth of a trench
H = 73:4465W 5 692:439W 4 + 2701:57W 3 4946:19W 2 + 5933:48W 248:768eW 1067:72 ln(W ) + 8:68507D5 55:7927D4 + 129:195eD
ð1Þ
+ 32:9592E5 212:536E4 + 668:066E3 375:568E2 302:175eE 1869:71 Equation (1) is suitable when the structure’s depth– width ratio is above 1.25, the trench width is from 10 to 1500 mm, and the depth is from 50 to 500 mm H = 160:726D4 1046:61D3 + 1835:21D2 + 28:8548eD 1033:09 ln(D) + 264:716E4 2125:23E3 + 8397:54E2
ð2Þ
17801:4E 298:108eE + 7084:97 ln(E) + 11143:4
Xu et al. with a fixed etching condition, as well as to choose reasonable etching parameters when one wants to reach a certain depth given a certain width of the etching structure.
15 obtained through the linear regression method, as follows DR = 694:455WR 804:680WR2 + 676:074WR3 251:642WR4
Experiential formula for the depth ratio of the etching structure. In most practical cases, when achieving a high aspect ratio in trenches or other structures, it is difficult to measure the depth of narrow trenches without breaking the wafer and measuring its cross section via SEM. This is because most of the observation apparatus is optical equipment, and it will be difficult for the light to reach the bottom of narrow trenches and come back. Especially when researching or developing a new device, the depth and aspect ratio may change multiple times. Thus, this breaking and measuring method results in two problems: 1.
2.
Once the wafer is broken, it cannot be used anymore. A new wafer should be etched (using the same process) to replace the broken one in the next processing step, but the unrepeatability of silicon etching conditions may make it impossible to duplicate the etching result exactly. Since the measurement cannot be done before the wafers are broken, a new wafer is always needed if the previous one did not reach the desired depth, which will frequently happen during the development of a new device. Many wafers may need to be etched and broken during this process, which leads to an enormous waste of money, resources, and time.
In contrast, the depth of wide trenches can be measured easily without damaging the wafer using optical measuring equipment, such as confocal displacement sensors and profilometers. If the relationship of the depths in wide trenches and narrow trenches can be determined, we can do a real-time measurement of the wide trenches outside or even inside the etching chamber without stopping the etching process, and then use this relationship to estimate the depth of the narrow trenches. Therefore, a real-time measurement of the narrow trenches’ depth can be acquired, which may make etching narrow trenches more controllable. To find out this relationship, we analyzed some data about the trenches’ total etching time, total passivation time, width ratios, and depth ratios. A depth of 1500mm-wide trench was set as a standard, so the depth ratio is defined as the depth of the target trench (mm) dividing the depth of 1500-mm-wide trench (mm). In the same way, the width ratio is defined as the width of target trench (mm) dividing 1500 mm. An experiential function formula for the relationship between the total etching/passivation time and the width/depth ratio was
+ 36:6070WR5 67:9947 ln(WR) 79:2927eWR + 1049:94E2 898:963E3 + 242:997E4 32:0831E5 942:232 ln(E) + 250:713eE + 39:0635D4 5:01812D5 + 153:069 ln(D) 117:165eD 803:336
ð3Þ
Equation (3) is suitable when the structure’s depth– width ratio is above 1.25, the trench width is from 10 to 1500 mm, and the depth is from 50 to 500 mm. In equation (3), DR is the depth ratio parameter, which is ((depth of target trench(mm))= (depth of 1500 mm wide trench(mm))) 3 100; WR is the width ratio parameter, which is ((width of target trench(mm))= (1500 mm)) 3 10; E is the total etching time (s/1000); and D is the total passivation time (s/1000). In all, 62 data points formed this experiential formula, with a correlation coefficient of 0.95805. With this formula, we can use a confocal displacement sensor, a profilometer, or other measuring apparatuses to measure the depth of 1500-mm-wide trenches in the wafer, to estimate the depth of the target trenches without breaking it. When the requisite depth of narrow trenches cannot be reached, the wafer can just be sent back into the DRIE system and continue being etched until it meets the required depth. This will save on the cost of wafers and achieve a real-time measurement of high-aspect-ratio trenches. Utilizing those relationships and experiential formulas, some high-aspect-ratio Si structures with depth higher than 250 mm have been reached with sidewall angles above 89° (as shown in Figure 18), including a 12-mm-wide and 377-mm-deep trench which has an aspect ratio higher than 31 (as shown in Figure 19), extending the application of the HARSE process into a new broad regime. Table 4 shows the detailed recipe for making those trenches. Previous studies have also focused on high-aspectratio etching for micromechanical devices. Notable findings include a 5-mm-wide and 115-mm-deep trench (aspect ratio up to 23) in Zhou’s20 study, a 7-mm-wide and 160-mm-deep trench (aspect ratio up to 22.8) in Mu’s21 study, and a 5-mm-wide and 144.2-mm-deep trench (aspect ratio up to 28.8) in Hu’s22 study. Figure 19 shows a comparable series of trenches of 12 mm in width and 377 mm in depth (aspect ratio up to 31.4), with a sidewall angle of 89°, which reaches the highest aspect ratio and the deepest etching.
16
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 18. (a) SEM cross section of some 24-mm-wide trenches. The depth of the trenches is 271.8 mm with a sidewall angle of 89.6°. (b) SEM cross section of some 33-mm-wide trenches. The depth of the trenches is 310 mm with a sidewall angle of 90°. (c) SEM cross section of some 30-mm-wide trenches. The depth of the trenches is 440.6 mm with a sidewall angle of 90°.
Figure 19. SEM cross section of some 12-mm-wide trenches. The maximum depth of the trenches is 377 mm with a sidewall angle of about 89°, and the aspect ratio is 31.4.
Figure 20. SEM cross-sectional photograph of the gas turbine stator structure.
According to the verification of the experiments, these equations could offer guidance to acquire a suitable process recipe for achieving a certain etching
structure more quickly. With the aid of these formulas, an original micro gas turbine test structure was fabricated; the cross section of the stator is shown in
Xu et al.
17
Table 4. Detailed recipe for crafting high-aspect-ratio trenches. Recipes Recipe number Total cycle Etching periods (s) Passivation periods (s) Trench’s width (mm) Calculated depth (mm) Real trench’s depth (mm) Aspect ratio SEM graph
12 440 8 5 24 275.7 271 11.3 Figure 18(a)
13 500 8 5 33 309 310 9.4 Figure 18(b)
14 480 8–10 5 30 445 440.6 14.7 Figure 18(c)
15 502 8–12 5 12 397 377 31.4 Figure 19
SEM: scanning electron microscope.
Figure 21. The (a) top and (b) bottom views of throttles in the micro gas turbine test structure.
Figure 20. The whole micro gas turbine stator structure was bonded by three 500-mm-thick silicon wafers. On each layer, there were several different requirements for etching width, depth, and sidewall angle for trenches, holes, and rings. Air bearing was also used in this gas turbine test structure. Utilizing the previous experience we gained from this research, 20 high-aspect-ratio holes were etched, each one 30 mm in diameter and 300 mm in depth (an aspect ratio of 10), which are used to form the throttles of the air bearing. It is difficult to get a cross-sectional picture of those throttles since the holes are either too small to cut at exact points with a diamond pen or too fragile to survive after the dicing. Figure 21(a) shows the top view of the throttles under
the microscope, where the diameter of the holes is 29.8 mm, while Figure 21(b) shows the bottom view, indicating that the bottom holes’ diameter is 28 mm. Knowing that the depth of those holes is 300 mm, we can calculate that the sidewall angle is nearly 89.6°.
Conclusion The feasibility of controlling the surface morphology and etching rates was experimentally examined in this article. The mechanisms behind the influences of bias power, etching chamber pressure, SF6 gas flow rate, and C4F8 gas flow rate on the surface morphology and etch rates were also analyzed. The results indicate that
18
Advances in Mechanical Engineering 1.
2.
3.
4.
Increasing bias power induces a higher etching rate. Meanwhile, higher bias power decreases the sidewall angle and makes the sidewall damage more serious. The best etching pressure, with the highest etching rate and the best sidewall angle, was found to be around 30 mTorr. Sidewall damage becomes more serious with increasing etching pressure. The etching rate reaches a peak when the flow rate of SF6 is 130 sccm. Nonetheless, the sidewall angle decreases when the SF6 flow rate becomes higher and the sidewall damage becomes worse. The etching rate reaches its peak when the flow rate of C4F8 is 85 sccm. Meanwhile, with the increasing C4F8 flow rate, the sidewall angle rises and the damage to the sidewall declines, just opposite to the trend with SF6.
This article also puts forward two experiential function formulas about the relationship between ICP-controlled parameters and etching structure morphology, with satisfying results for some structures of relatively high aspect ratios, including some 12-mm-wide and 377-mm-deep trenches (aspect ratio up to 31.4). A gas turbine test structure was successfully fabricated with the aid of these formulas. Overall, they could be helpful in finding a suitable process recipe for a certain etching structure in the fabrication process of micromechanical devices and save costs over using trial and error. Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51506022).
References 1. Ayo´n AA, Braff R, Lin CC, et al. Characterization of a time multiplexed inductively coupled plasma etcher. J Electrochem Soc 1999; 146: 339–349. 2. Tian WC, Weigold JW and Pang SW. Comparison of Cl2 and F-based dry etching for high aspect ratio Si microstructures etched with an inductively coupled plasma source. J Vac Sci Technol B 2000; 18: 1890–1896. 3. Craciun G, Blauw MA, Van der Drift E, et al. Advanced time-multiplexed plasma etching of high aspect ratio silicon structures. J Vac Sci Technol B 2002; 20: 3106–3110.
4. Parasuraman J, Summanwar A, Marty F, et al. Deep reactive ion etching of sub-micrometer trenches with ultra high aspect ratio. Microelectron Eng 2014; 113: 35–39. 5. Ameri F, Gutierrez D, Pamarthy S, et al. Innovative chamber design and excellent process performance and stability for ultra high aspect ratio deep trench etch. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on dry process, Nagoya, Japan, 29–30 November 2006, vol. 6, pp.229–230. Tokyo, Japan: The Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan. 6. Aachboun S and Ranson P. Deep anisotropic etching of silicon. J Vac Sci Technol A 1999; 17: 2270–2273. 7. Wu B, Kumar A and Pamarthy S. High aspect ratio silicon etch: a review. J Appl Phys 2010; 108: 051101. 8. De Boer MJ, Gardeniers JGE, Jansen HV, et al. Guidelines for etching silicon MEMS structures using fluorine high-density plasmas at cryogenic temperatures. J Microelectromech S 2002; 11: 385–401. 9. Tserepi A, Gogolides E, Cardinaud C, et al. Highly anisotropic silicon and polysilicon room-temperature etching using fluorine-based high density plasmas. Microelectron Eng 1998; 41–42: 411–414. 10. Henry MD, Walavalkar S, Homyk A, et al. Alumina etch masks for fabrication of high-aspect-ratio silicon micropillars and nanopillars. Nanotechnology 2009; 20: 255305. 11. Olynick DL, Liddle JA, Harteneck BD, et al. Nanoscale pattern transfer for templates, NEMs, and nano-optics. Proc SPIE 2007; 6462: 64620J. 12. Meng L and Yan J. Mechanism study of sidewall damage in deep silicon etch. Appl Phys A: Mater 2014; 117: 1771–1776. 13. Chen K-S, Ayo´n AA, Zhang X, et al. Effect of process parameters on the surface morphology and mechanical performance of silicon structures after deep reactive ion etching (DRIE). J Microelectromech S 2002; 11: 264–275. 14. Wu C, Erdmann L, Gabriel KJ, et al. Fabrication of silicon sidewall profiles for fluidic applications using modified advanced silicon etching. Proc SPIE 2001; 4407: 100–108. 15. Ayo´n AA, Lin CC, Braff RA, et al. Etching characteristics and profile control in a time multiplexed inductively coupled plasma etcher. In: Proceedings of the IEEE solidstate sensor and actuator workshop, Hilton Head, SC, 8– 11 June 1998, pp.41–44. New York: IEEE. 16. Edelberg EA, Perry A, Benjamin N, et al. Compact floating ion energy analyzer for measuring energy distributions of ions bombarding radio-frequency biased electrode surfaces. Rev Sci Instrum 1999; 70: 2689–2698. 17. Gomez S, Belen RJ, Kiehlbauch M, et al. Etching of high aspect ratio structures in Si using SF6/O2 plasma. J Vac Sci Technol A 2004; 22: 606–615. 18. Jung K, Song W, Lim HW, et al. Parameter study for silicon grass formation in Bosch process. J Vac Sci Technol B 2010; 28: 143–148. 19. Mogab CJ, Adams AC and Flamm DL. Plasma etching of Si and SiO2—the effect of oxygen additions to CF4 plasmas. J Appl Phys 1978; 49: 3796–3803. 20. Zhou S, Hu J, Zhu Y, et al. Research on deep silicon etching for micro-channel plates. In: Proceedings of the
Xu et al. international conference on photonics and optical engineering, Xi’an, China, 13–15 October 2014. Bellingham, WA: SPIE. 21. Mu J, Chou X, He T, et al. Fabrication of high aspect ratio silicon micro-structures based on aluminum mask
19 patterned by IBE and RIE processing. Microsyst Technol 2016; 22: 215–222. 22. Hu J, Zhou S, Hu S, et al. Study of high aspect ratio silicon etching based on ICP. Proc SPIE 2015; 9449: 94493P-1–94493P-6.
