Microsystem Technologies

, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp 1971–1980

Fast and accurate X-ray lithography simulation enabled by using Monte Carlo method. New version of DoseSim: a software dedicated to deep X-ray lithography (LIGA)

Technical Paper

Abstract

This paper presents the recent development of a simulation tool for deep X-ray lithography. The simulation tool named DoseSim (Meyer et al. in Rev Sci Instrum 74(2):1113–1119, 2003) is a graphical user interface, working under Windows, specially dedicated to the necessary requirements of X-ray lithography setting at a synchrotron. The previous version included the computation of synchrotron radiation from bending magnets, the effects of the optical properties of materials, single mirror and the necessary parameters for the resist exposure. New functionalities, including among others, the exposure time calculation, the insertion of a double mirror, secondary effects (Fresnel diffraction, dose deposited under the absorber) have been added. Also, DoseSim includes traceability concerning the database and calculations used, and de facto the results obtained. Furthermore, Monte Carlo calculations using the PENetration and Energy LOss of Positrons and Electrons (PENELOPE) (Salvat et al.in OECD/NEA Data Bank, France, NEA N°6416, http://www.nea.fr/lists/penelope.html, 2008) code of the spatial distribution of the dose deposited by an X-ray beam in a resist are used. The PENELOPE results (simulations were done mono-energetically for a large range of energy) are the basis of the DoseSim routines for the calculations of the absorbed dose behind the absorber, and at the interface resist/seed layer/substrate. Example of calculations will be discussed along with the effects on dose from different seed layers and substrates.

References

  1. Becker EW, Ehrfeld W, Hagmann P, Maner A, Münchmeyer D (1986) Fabrication of microstructures with high aspect ratios and structural heights by synchrotron radiation lithography, galvanoforming, and plastic moulding (LIGA process). Microelectron Eng 4:35–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cremers C, Bouamrane F et al (2001) SU-8 as resist material for deep X-ray lithography. Microsyst Technol 7:11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cruise RB, Moskvin V, Sheppard R (2003) Parallelization of PENELOPE Monte Carlo particle transport simulation package Proc. ‘Nuclear mathematical and computational sciences: a century in review, a century anew’ (Gatlinburg, TN, April 6–11). American Nuclear Society, LaGrange ParkGoogle Scholar
  4. Dai W, Nassar R (1998) A three-dimensional numerical method for thermal analysis in X-ray lithography. Int J Numer Meth Heat Fluid Flow 8(4):409–423MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feiertag G, Ehrfeld W, Lehr H, Schmidt A, Schmidt M (1997) Calculation and experimental determination of the structure transfer accuracy in deep X-ray lithography. J Micromech Microeng 7:323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Griffiths SK (2004) Fundamental limitations of LIGA X-ray lithography: sidewall offset, slope and minimum feature size. J Micromech Microeng 14:999–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffiths SK, JCrowell JAW, Kistler BL, Dryden AS AS (2004) Dimensional errors in LIGA-produced metal structures due to thermal expansion and swelling of PMMA. J Micromech Microeng 14:1548–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Griffiths SK et al (2005) Resist substrate studies for LIGA microfabrication with application to a new anodized aluminium substrate. J Micromech Microeng 15:1700–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guo ZY, Cerrina F (1993) Modeling X-ray proximity lithography. IBM J Res Develop 37:331–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heinrich K, Betz H, Heuberger A, Pongratz S (1981) Computer simulations of resist profiles in X-ray lithography. J Vac Sci Technol 19(4):1254–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henke BL, Gullikson EM, Davis JC (1993) X-ray interactions: photoabsorption, scattering, transmission, and reflection at E = 50-30000 eV, Z = 1-92. At Data Nucl Data Tables 54(2):181–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meyer P, Schulz J, Hahn L (2003) DoseSim: MS-Windows graphical user interface for using synchrotron X-ray exposure and subsequent development in the LIGA process. Rev Sci Instrum 74(2):1113–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meyer P, Saile V, Schulz J (2010) Deep X-ray lithography, chapter 13. In: Yi Qin (ed) Micro-manufacturing engineering and technology, 1st edn. William Andrew (Elsevier), Oxford, pp 202–220, ISBN-13: 978-0-81-551545-6Google Scholar
  14. Pantenburg FJ (2007) Instrumentation for microfabrication with deep X-ray lithography. AIP Conf Proc 879:1456–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Perennes F, Vesselli E, Pantenburg FJ (2002) Deep X-ray lithography at ELETTRA using a central beam-stop to enhance adhesion. Microsyst Technol 8:330–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Salvat F, Fernandez-Varea JM, Sempau J (2008) PENELOPE-2008: a code system for Monte Carlo simulation of electron and photon transport (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France: OECD/NEA Data Bank) NEA N°6416. http://www.nea.fr/lists/penelope.html
  17. Sanchez del Rio M, Dejus RJ (2004) XOP 2.1: a new version of the X-ray optics software toolkit. Synchrotron radiation instrumentation: eighth international conference on synchrotron radiation instrumentation. AIP Conf Proc 705:784–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Microstructure Technology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)University of the State of Baden Wuerttemberg, National Laboratory of the Helmholtz AssociationEggenstein-LeopoldshafenGermany

Personalised recommendations