Share Email Print
cover

Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS

Effect of chemoepitaxial guiding underlayer design on the pattern quality and shape of aligned lamellae for fabrication of line-space patterns
Author(s): Benjamin D. Nation; Andrew J. Peters; Richard A. Lawson; Peter J. Ludovice; Clifford L. Henderson
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $20.00 $25.00

Paper Abstract

Chemoepitaxial guidance of block copolymer directed self-assembly in thin films is explored using a coarse-grained molecular dynamics model. The underlayers studied are 2 × density multiplying line-space patterns composed of repeating highly preferential pinning stripes of various widths separated by larger, more neutral, background regions of various compositions. Decreasing the pinning stripe width or making the background region more neutral is found to increase the line edge roughness (LER) of the lines, but these conditions are found to give the straightest sidewalls for the formed lines. Varying these underlayer properties is found to have minimal effect on linewidth roughness. A larger pinning stripe causes the pinned line (PL) to foot (expand near the substrate), and a preferential background region causes the unpinned line (UPL) to undercut (contract near the substrate). A simple model was developed to predict the optimal conditions to eliminate footing. Using this model, conditions are found that decrease footing of the PL, but these conditions increase undercutting in the UPL. Deformations in either the PL or UPL propagate to the other line. There exists a trade-off between LER and the footing/undercutting, that is, decreasing LER increases footing/undercutting and vice versa.

Paper Details

Date Published: 27 October 2017
PDF: 12 pages
J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS 16(4) 043502 doi: 10.1117/1.JMM.16.4.043502
Published in: Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS Volume 16, Issue 4
Show Author Affiliations
Benjamin D. Nation, Georgia Institute of Technology (United States)
Andrew J. Peters, Georgia Institute of Technology (United States)
Richard A. Lawson, Georgia Institute of Technology (United States)
Peter J. Ludovice, Georgia Institute of Technology (United States)
Clifford L. Henderson, Georgia Institute of Technology (United States)
Univ. of South Florida (United States)


© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top