No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Degradation of Ferroelectric Capacitors during Metal Etching and Ashing Processes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2011
Abstract
Polarization degradation due to metal etch and/or photoresist(PR) strip processes has been investigated for Pt/SrBi2Ta2O9(SBT)/Pt ferroelectric capacitors. Interconnect metal line consisting of TiN/Al/Ti/TiN/Ti layers has been patterned by normal photolithography and plasma etch processes. We used two different sources for metal etcher, helicon or electron cyclotron resonance(ECR) source, and stripped the PR with either microwave or helicon source stripper. Polarization degradation was evaluated by measuring switching and non-switching polarization of the ferroelectric capacitors.
Neither etch machine nor etch parameters played an important role for determining polarization of the ferroelectric capacitors. Photoresist strip process, however, significantly affected the polarization of the ferroelectric capacitors. Factors affecting polarization of the ferroelectric capacitors were presence of hydrogen and plasma density during the strip process. Hydrogen atoms and protons produced by H2O or NH3 plasma penetrated through the dielectric layer and caused hydrogen induced damage. Thus the hydrogen damage was dependent on strip temperature and time. Photoresist strip with high density plasma results in charging damage to ferroelectric capacitors. It is believed that charges from the plasma are trapped at domain boundaries and interfaces, leading to polarization degradation. Damage free metal etching process for the ferroelectric capacitor was applied for the fabrication of the fully working ferroelectric random access memory.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Materials Research Society 2001
References
1.
Takashima, D. and Kunishima, I., IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, 33, 787 (1998).10.1109/4.668994Google Scholar
2.
Tanaka, S., Ogiwara, R., Itoh, Y., Miyakawa, T., Takeuchi, Y., Doumae, S., Takenaka, H., and Kamata, H., IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, 47, 781 (2000).10.1109/16.830994Google Scholar
3.
Kushida-Abdelghafar, K., Miki, H., Torii, K., and Fujisaki, Y., Appl. Phys. Lett., 69, 3188 (1996).10.1063/1.117956Google Scholar
4.
Im, J., O, Auciello, Krauss, A. R., Gruen, D. M., Chang, R. P. H., Kim, S. H., and Kingon, A. I., Appl. Phys. Lett., 74, 1162 (1999).10.1063/1.123474Google Scholar
5.
Aggarwal, S., Perusse, S. R., Tipton, C. W., Ramesh, R., Drew, H. D., Venkatesan, T., Romero, D. B., Podobedov, V. B., and Weber, A., Appl. Phys. Lett., 73, 1973 (1998).10.1063/1.122339Google Scholar
6.
Saks, N. S., Klein, R. B., Stahlbush, R. E., Mrstik, B. J., and Rendell, R. W., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 40, 1341 (1993).10.1109/23.273533Google Scholar
7.
Shimamoto, Y., Kushida-Abdelghafar, K., Miki, H., and Fujisaki, Y., Appl. Phys. Lett., 70, 3096 (1997).10.1063/1.119102Google Scholar
8.
Shi, J., Kamarehi, M., Shaner, D., Rounds, S., Fink, S., and Ferris, D., Solid State Technology, 38, (1995).Google Scholar