Effects of barrier layer and processing conditions on thin film Cu microstructure

  • E. M. Zielinski
  • R. P. Vinci
  • J. C. Bravman
Article
Received:
Revised:

Abstract

The crystallographic texture and grain size of sputtered Cu films were characterized as a function of deposition temperature, barrier layer material, and vacuum conditions. For Cu deposited in a HV chamber, (111) Cu texture was found to weaken with increasing deposition temperatures on W, amorphous C and Ta barrier layers, each deposited at 30°C. Conversely, under identical Cu deposition conditions, texture was found to strengthen with increasing deposition temperature on Ta deposited at 100°C. Median Cu grain size varied parabolically with deposition temperature on all barrier layers and was slightly higher on the 100°C Ta at a given Cu deposition temperature, relative to the other underlayers. For depositions in an UHV chamber, Cu texture was found to strengthen with increasing Cu deposition temperature, independent of Ta deposition temperature. Median Cu grain size, however, was still higher on 100°C Ta than on 30°C Ta. The observed differences between the two different chambers suggest that the trend of weak texture at elevated deposition temperatures may be related to contamination. Characterization of the Ta underlayers revealed that the strengthened texture of Cu films deposited on 100°C Ta is likely related to textural inheritance.

Key words

Copper microstructure texture thin films 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    P.-L. Pai and C.H. Ting,VMIC Conf. Proc. 6, 258 (1989).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Tao, N.W. Cheung and C. Hu,IEEE Electron. Dev. Lett. 14, 249 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K.P. Rodbell, E.G. Colgan and C.-K. Hu,Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 337 (1994).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Stolt, A. Charai, F.M. D’Heurle, P.M. Fryer and J.M.E. Harper,J. Vac. Sci. Tech. A 9, 1501 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Holloway and P.M. Fryer,Appl. Phys. Lett. 57, 1736 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Kolawa, J.S. Chen, J.S. Reid, P.J. Pokela and M.A. Nicolet,J. Appl. Phys. 70, 1369 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Li, J.W. Strane, S.W. Russell, S.Q. Hong, J.W. Mayer, T.K. Marais, C.C. Theron and R. Pretorius,J. Appl. Phys. 72, 2810 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.G. Purser, J.W. Strane and J.W. Mayer,Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 309 (1993), p. 481.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D.P. Tracy, D.B. Knorr and K.P. Rodbell,J. Appl. Phys. 76, 2671 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    C.V. Thompson,Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 20, 245 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Vaidya and A.K. Sinha,Thin Sol. Films 75, 253 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Cho and C.V. Thompson,J. Electron. Mater. 19, 1207 (1990).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D.B. Knorr and K.P. Rodbell,Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 309 (1993), p. 345.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R.P. Vinci and J.C. Bravman,Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 308 (1993), p. 337.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D.P. Tracy and D.B. Knorr,J. Electron. Mater. 22,611(1993).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Ohmi, T. Saito, M. Otsuki, T. Shibata and T. Nitta,J. Electrochem. Soc. 138, 1089 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.M.E. Harper, J. Gupta, D.A. Smith, J.W. Chang, K.L. Holloway, C. Cabrai, D.P. Tracy and D.B. Knorr,Appl. Phys. Lett. 65, 177 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    E.M. Zielinski, R.P. Vinci and J.C. Bravman,J. Appl. Phys. 76, 4516 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M.J. Verkerk, G.J. van der Kolk and W.A.M.C. Brankaert,Semicon. Int. 11, 106 (1988).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G.J. van der Kolk, M.J. Verkerk and W.A.M.C. Brankaert,Semicon. Int. 11, 224 (1988).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D.R. Frear, A.N. Campbell, B.L. Draper and R.E. Mikawa,J. Electron. Mater. 18, 517 (1989).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    L.G. Schulz,J. Appl. Phys. 20, 1030 (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    D.B. Knorr,Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 309 (1993), p. 75.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Standard Test Method for Preparing Quantitative Pole Figures, ASTM Standard E81-90 (Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1990).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    E.F. Kaelble,Handbook of X-rays (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Roberts and P.J. Dobson,Thin Sol. Films 135, 137 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    P.T. Moseley and C.J. Seabrook,Acta Crystallogr. B 29, 1170 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    L.A. Clevenger, N.A. Bojarczuk, K. Holloway, J.M.E. Harper, C. Cabrai Jr., R.G. Schad, F. Cardone and L. Stolt,J. Appl. Phys. 73, 300 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Catania, J.P. Doyle and J.J. Cuomo,J. Vac. Sci. Tech. A 10, 3318 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    D.B. Knorr and T.-M. Lu,Appl. Phys. Lett. 54, 2210 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Metallurgical of Society of AIME 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. M. Zielinski
    • 1
  • R. P. Vinci
    • 1
  • J. C. Bravman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations