Raith Maintenance and Testing Hours -- LONG BUT PLEASE READ ME
jwc at snf.stanford.edu
Wed Nov 24 17:03:51 PST 2004
Greetings Ali Javey and the entire Raith Community:
Ali Javey and Others whom have commented:
Thank you for your emails. This is my sincere attempt to address all
your questions within this email and to continue this thread for
discussion on the Raith discussion list. It is well overdue and we
should hold our next Ebeam Town Hall Meeting in the coming weeks. Next
Tuesday afternoon I will post an announcement for the next two meetings.
One to be held in December ( December 15? 2- 4 PM) and another 2005
Kickoff meeting in mid January. The primary purpose is to get everyone
together to discuss the issues that are most important to users and find
amiable solutions that meet with everyones satisfaction. We have created
a community, and as a community member your participation and inputs are
valuable to SNF and myself in order to help us develop a World Class
E-beam Lab User facility within Stanford and the NNIN.
Over the course of the last three months we have been all burdened with
several performance issues on the system as we extended our Preventative
Maintenance interval beyond the time we normally would have sought to
perform this routine.
At the level of usage that this system has experienced over the course
of the last year, we simply will need to perform these routines more
often. IMHO: PM's should be performed twice a year versus the annual
schedule we had been maintaining thus far.
These are the specific issues of concern that have been leading me to
the decision to do the PM:
* Aperture charging effects observed when blanking and unblanking
the beam resulting in Image drift during the write field
acquisition. This adds to the challenge of properly aligning the
write fields making it difficult to complete the alignment
routine accurately. This problem negatively impacts users working
in high resolution materials on features below 100 nm, and all
whom need accurate write field to write field stitching to
specifications. (60 nm)
* Problems with the Raith Beam Blanker leakage level has plagued
users working with sensitive resist (UVN-30 and ZEP-520-12) as
well as those whom are exposing a single write field for long
enough periods that the blanker leakage dosage summed reaches the
'dose to clear' for the resist. While we have come up with some
work-around methods to reduce this effect; some users are still
unable to get exposures completed. Not all users have been able to
get the results they demand and expect from the system.
* A number of users and myself have observed an emerging problem
with non circularity of both single shot dot exposures and for
exposures made using the RAITH circles mode. This may be simply
the challenge mentioned above of completing the align write field
properly and obtaining the correct ZOOM U, ZOOM V parameter.
However charging effects in the aperture plate and column can also
greatly influence this, but with the caveat that I would expect
the exposure results to be more variable and random in the
magnitude of its effect and its severity. These features in fact
are consistent in their non circularity. In the past, based on
performance test we made last year, circularity has never been
observed to be an issue of concern. This problem is steadily
growing more severe and apparent to anyone examining their fine
high resolution features by SEM closely.
* Beam Current has been steadily falling through the period since
the last PM, and for some users we are moving below acceptable
values for beam current for the 30 and the 10 um apertures. This
results in longer exposure time reducing the amount of time
available on the system for all users.
* Multiple beam spots are being observed by users working within a
reduced raster scan field, these shots are appearing outside the
area of the reduced raster scanning. I have also witness myself
single pixel line running across structures I have written
presumably from charging effects in the apertures upon unblanking
* Finally in the last month only, I have had several user reports of
the diameter of a short shot contamination dot to be increasing
from the 15 - 20 nm dot diameter that all users have become
accustomed to obtaining. I checked this myself and also can
verify this with my best shots previously 12 - 15 nm AFTER
careful focusing and stigmation now being measured at 23 - ~32
nm. I also have not seen Single Pixels Lines below 37 nm in the
exposures I made with the RAITH Group XI class in October.
Additional recent exposures are in the SEM inspection queue, but I
myself have been unable to get on the system to finish this work
in the last two weeks due to my working with users on the above
mentioned issues during my PCM testing time slots.
I firmly believe that all of the above mentioned issues and phenomenon
will be corrected once we complete the Preventative Maintenance routine
on the LEO column. This is a standard approach and practice for any SEM.
>>What exactly will be done during this maintenance of the Raith system?
Great Question and one whose answer changes from PM to PM as we address
specific issues on the system.
to link to a summary of the task we hope to complete in the next PM
which we have now scheduled for December 13, 2004 - January 4, 2005.
>>Can you please clarify the maintenance and testing policies of the Raith?
There are no current policies for maintenance or testing other than I
have to ensure the system is working within specifications we would
expect for a factory qualified RAITH 150 system. If I am not obtaining
perfect quality results in my testing work and/or Users are reporting
problems on the system my specific mission is to determine the source of
the problems and with alacrity correct these issues promptly to the best
of my ability and using the support of RAITH Companies and Zeiss SMT
Field Service groups.
To determine that the system has been repaired and the outstanding
issues have been address, and to establish baselines of performance to
aid in monitoring the system performance, we must then qualify the
system using qualified reference resist material. Initially we call
this the RAITH Qualification procedure and is it normally the first set
of exposures performed on the system. For nearly the past year I have
been working off a template that I initially established in March of
2004 after the last period of downtime after the FEB. 14th PM routine
was completed. I have now developed this into a document and have
attached this to the RAITH Notebook No 2. in the Ebeam Lab and also
attached to this email: [Template_Qualification_RAITH 150.doc]
Once we have qualified the RAITH system it is important to perform
periodic System Performance and Process Control Monitoring (PCM) to
establish and track system and resist performance issues. This in fact
has been mandated by Paul Rissman to be performed Daily on the system
and this project was added to my review goals for the next year.
Process Control Monitors:
Last year we started developing Process Control Monitors patterns
(PCM's) for both the Hitachi HL-700 E-beam and the RAITH both to
qualify the system and monitor process capability both at exposure and
after pattern transfer. These were designed to be of use to anyone
working on the systems with the hopes that Users would step forward and
more readily report their results obtained on the systems.
This year past it became apparent that daily performance monitoring
while greatly needed was impractical from a system utilization and
measurement task standpoint. The Performance testing for May/June
report that I published to the bulletin board outside the Ebeam lab
displayed some of the best results ever obtained on the system here at
SNF, and confirmed nearly exactly similar work I obtained at the end of
the year in 2003. Hard Copies of this report are available upon request.
This work took me nearly 100 hours of my time and 45 hours of Beam time
to complete to my satisfaction. But it did establish a baseline we wish
to strive for and a direction to pursue towards meeting with Paul
Rissman and my shared goal for system performance monitoring.
In the last five months I have been diligently working on establishing a
core set of PCM test patterns and measurement methods that will:
* Write on the Raith system in a reasonable amount of time targeting
less than an hour of write time.
* Perform semiautomatic and automated measurements of the exposed
pattern using the RAITH metrology package.
* Render quality statistics on system performance for minimum
features resolved, typical SPL CD dimension, dot shot and
circularity size, and accurate measurement and plots of pattern
stitching and overlay results.
* Allow the data gathered is to be plotted and presented as
Statistical Process Control (SPC) reports of system performance as
well as providing example images for our presentations and public
displays here at SNF.
* Establish default exposure and measurement files that can be
included with any RAITH user's exposure adding to our knowledge
database enhancing the process development task that are being
continuously improved in my other project development of the
Ebeam Resist Processes Suite on our web site.
To say the least this has been a significant focus of my work on the
system adding to the many task and the number of hours of my time I work
here at SNF.
>> I was able to write 20 nm features using Raith across a 10x10 mm chip.
Great! Fantastic. Show me the data and a SEM measurement! Post it to
the Board outside the Lab!
How come no one has ever posted their results or even an image to the
list or onto the Bulletin Board?
>>>To the best of my knowledge that is below the spec.
There is no minimum specification but SPL's are specified to be at 20 nm
on 100 nm PMMA. Smallest shot dot I have measured is 7 - 10 nm (gage
of measurement is +- 3 nm) Smallest feature last month I have found
after pattern transfer is a 23 nm dot shot, but smaller features have
been generated. They are very hard to find and even more difficult to
>>> Talking to some of the other experienced users, it seems that they
are also getting nice results.
But not all of the people all of the time. There are several users
struggling to get the results they desperately need. One group in fact
requested a refund of the moneys they have been charged by SNF because
they claim they did not get the results they expected in their use of
the system over the last year. Would that group care to comment on this
>>> Also by looking at the log book, I noticed that the experienced
users have not reported any problems recently.
Only one user, Joshua Ratchford, has reported to the RAITH logbook any
pattern results on the system whatsoever other than myself! Clearly not
acceptable, in conflict with all SNF requirements for reporting , and
you are not participating fully in the community if you do not report
your project results. Please think about starting to contribute a
periodic report your results as this give me quality data to establish
baselines of performance. This will then allow me more time to address
specific user problems and take up less of my time to evaluate normal
system performance characteristics.
So I put out this challenge to the RAITH community:
You would help me and SNF greatly by promptly and accurately reporting
your results on the RAITH logbook for each and every exposure made on
the system. It would help me even more if you posted your results in
monthly summaries to the discussion list
<http://snf.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi/2160>, or onto the RAITH
SWIKI <http://elrey.stanford.edu:8080/Raith>, or your SWIKI or web page.
Finally PLEASE post your best results and feature images on the Bulletin
Board outside the Lab for all to see.
I will be posting my report 'Performance Testing of the RAITH 150 system
for November 2004' once I measure my last samples. I hope to have this
completed by the end of next week. I will also post to the Bulletin
Board images obtained in the last two months highlighting some of the
problems we have been attempting to resolve that I outlined above.
>>My second concern is regarding the total number of hours that is
reserved by yourself.
>> Can you please explain how the other hours are used?
Another great question I will attempt to answer herein:
In October and November nearly half my time on the system has been spent
with troubleshooting the system, responding to users reports of problems
in their writes, many test and measurements requested by RAITH Field
service, and in maintenance and repair issues all related to the
problems reported. The end results is we determined we must complete
the PM routine ASAP to resolve the issues on the system, or at least to
get to the next level of items to troubleshoot seeking resolution of all
Completed last month was the mechanical adjustment to and measurements
of levelness the Electrostatic Chuck allowing it to level using the
within 13 - 18 microns of flatness at 5 mm. This work continues with
characterizing the Std. Sample holder and determining a figure of merit
for leveling using piezo's on the STD. Sample Holder. This was
prompted by Users, all of whom are using focus correction by adjusting
working distance, whom reported Write field rotations leading to Y
During many of my "PCM Testing and Measurement" sessions I have been
barraged by users requesting additional help on the system for specific
training points and troubleshooting their processes and exposure results.
More than a few of you have requested all, or part of, my reservation
times for urgent rework and to meet your conference deadlines. Then let
me point out the 100's of times and many hours of opportunity lost when
I am interrupted during my work to help you and answer your questions,
when I am actually attempting to get work performed on the system.
This has become very acute in recent weeks and my tolerance for this
behavior is growing very thin.
I have recently started charging your projects for the time and impact
of these interruptions take up including the time it takes to return to
task. I have recently given verbal warnings to two users to stop this
behavior in the last two weeks.
I have an office hour every day from 8:30 - 9:30 AM when I am available
to meet with you -- make use of it.
Several days in November were also lost to crashes, downtime and
repairs, and a full day and night lost at the Power Failure several
This month I have been working with users from Octobers RAITH Basic
Users class assisting them to quickly come up to speed on the system.
This work directly benefits everyone as it pushed these new users well
up the learning curve promptly. They are all working on very challenging
projects and I feel that this time has been very well spent.
Users KQYOUN, LEVI, HANSJ, MAKAROVA, GOETZINGER, WINGCAT, DWSHIN,
KHANSOLO, YKYOON would you care to comment on the usefulness of these
sessions for your research?
Currently I also have been teaching a small group users the RAITH Basic
Users course over several sessions spread over the last month.. Mainly
users MAKAROVA, GOETZINGER, Kenneth Chen and some walk ins whom wished
to joined us to get first views and demo of the system This has the
same impact as the 4 day intensive short course I teach every two months
on the system. This effort was made to get several users through the
class in November so it would open 2 or 3 slots for the next Raith
class. I have many more persons whom wish to be on using the system
than I can train in one class (4 persons Max. per class. with 12 more
and growing on my wait listed to be trained after the next class.)
In effect all users will feel the reduced total time to access the system.
Finally I am doing my own process development work while working on a
number of projects on the system. In October and November I completed
work for both Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Labs (LLNL) and for Georgia Tech
(GIT)/ Devry's University. The LLNL work was 4 wafer writes of a NIL
pattern to 23 nm, the GaTech group project is waveguides and photonics
crystals. this work is ongoing and will require overnight writes. These
members are industrial and academic users of our lab, they are helping
to fund out lab.
I have striven to minimized the impact of these efforts to your system
access and often utilize times that the system has remained open.
Rarely do I make these reservation outside your 10 day reservation view
window. Both of these projects have suffered many significant delays
while I wait for system access time, due to cancellations to give you
access, and due to unscheduled down time. Generally it seems to me that
my reservations become less valuable than yours when we have system
problems or you express an urgent deadline or need for access. Does
anyone at all disagree?
Finally realize that just because it says 'JWC' on the Coral system
often it is for reservations and scheduling adjustments I have made to
smooth out the flow of things and improving the throughput on the system
Most of these adjustments have been requested and driven by your needs
and not mine. I often include the task as planned in the comments
section of the reservation so you can determine what is going on with
the system by clicking on my reservation in CORAL.
There are no limits to the time I can reserve the system during normal
business hours. I do work days and not nights/weekends. The '8 hour
rule' does not apply to the task I am completing on the system as all of
you will benefit from my work. As always, I normally plan to make use
of the open time on the system but some writes will require me to block
out significant amounts of continuous time to write on the RAITH. As we
move into more NIL pattern work these needs will likely increase in the
Questions for the RAITH Community:
Should we limit or eliminate access to the system for new Stanford
University users wishing to work on the system?
Should we eliminate all outside academic and industrial users access
working on the system?
Should we penalize those users whom do not honor, nor make timely notice
of their cancellations on the system?
Should we charge more for access to the RAITH system, or consider
elimination of the time cap on the usage charges of this system?
Would users be supportive of justifying the purchase of a second RAITH
system either another RAITH 150 or a RAITH 100 suitable for chip writes?
Your comments, opinions, and critique of these ideas are requested. Post
your replies to this RAITH discussion list.
I do sincerely hope you will appreciate and consider the comments I have
made in reply to the very thoughtful note that Ali Javey presented last
week. I gave this response much thought and consideration over the past
week with the aim of accurately and succinctly answer all your questions.
You are the RAITH community and your work and goal of obtaining perfect
results on the RAITH 150 are important to me. I would expect that any
user will come to me immediately upon running into problems on the
system, especially if it be performance or scheduling issues.
Working closely together I know we can achieve truly World Class status
for our Ebeam Lab. Participation in this goal is up to you and you alone.
Thank you for your support! Your comments are invited.
Ali Javey wrote:
>Can you please clarify the maintenance and testing policies of the Raith?
>I have noticed that Raith will be shut down again at the end of next week
>for "maintenance". What exactly will be done during this maintenance?
>The reason that I am asking is because at the moment Raith seems to be
>working well. Over the weekend, I was able to write 20 nm features using
>Raith across a 10x10 mm chip. To the best of my knowledge that is below
>the spec. Talking to some of the other experienced users, it seems that
>they are also getting nice results. Also by looking at the log book, I
>noticed that the experienced users have not reported any problems
>recently. May be users can reply to this message and report whether they
>have observed any problems/errors in their recent writes. My concern with
>the maintenance is that from the past, it seems that whenever the column
>is brought down for aperture or tip replacements, the system typically
>becomes unstable for few weeks with constant down time. So the question is
>when are the repairs and maintenance absolutely necessary to achieve the
>highest possible efficiency and performance for the equipment.
>My second concern is regarding the total number of hours that is reserved
>by yourself. By looking at Coral, it seems that for example, you have
>signed up for 11 hours both on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. There
>is also a 5-hrs reservation block on Thursday and 3-hrs block on Friday.
>This adds up to a total of 30 hrs of reservation to your name just for
>this week, mainly during the prime hours. This is for the week before the
>shutdown and at the time when Raith is heavily used. It seems that only 3
>hrs (Friday) of these reservations are for user training. Can you please
>explain how the other hours are used? From Coral, it seems that 22 hrs
>are used for GI and PCM (testing?). Should there be a limit to such
>reservations? Should the 8 hrs rule also apply to yourself. Is testing
>really necessary or can we rely on users' inputs for system qualification?
>>From talking to various users from various groups, it seems that such long
>reservation hrs are an issue of concern to many users.
>I will appreciate your comments regarding the above issues and I really
>hope that all users can also provide their inputs through e-mails to this
>list in order for us to make the system more efficient and available to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Template_Qualification_ RAITH150EBL.doc
Size: 31232 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the raith