Thermal & E-Beam Evaporation Simulation

Physical Vapor Deposition: Vacuum evaporation, molecular flux distribution, thickness uniformity, and ballistic transport

5 kW
1400 °C
10⁻⁶ Torr
40 cm
0 deg
1.0×
Au
Thermal

Evaporation Rate

0.0Å/s

Vapor Pressure

0.00Torr

Mean Free Path

0.0m

Deposition Rate

0.00Å/s

Film Thickness

0nm

Uniformity

0.0%

3D Evaporation Chamber with Molecular Flux

Thermal Evaporation Physics

Thermal evaporation heats materials above their sublimation/evaporation temperature in high vacuum. Atoms/molecules escape the melt surface, travel ballistically, and condense on substrates.

Vapor Pressure - Clausius-Clapeyron

log₁₀(P_vapor) = A - B/T
P_vapor: equilibrium vapor pressure (Torr)
T: absolute temperature (K)
A, B: material constants

Examples at 1400°C (1673 K):
Al: A=12.95, B=15,900 → P≈10⁻³ Torr
Au: A=12.23, B=19,710 → P≈10⁻⁵ Torr
Cu: A=12.24, B=17,520 → P≈10⁻⁴ Torr
Ag: A=12.01, B=14,850 → P≈10⁻³ Torr

Rule of thumb: Need T where P > 10⁻² Torr
for practical evaporation rates

Evaporation Rate - Langmuir Equation

Γ_evap = α × P_vapor × √(M / (2πRT))
Γ_evap: molecular flux (molecules/cm²/s)
α: evaporation coefficient (0.01-1.0)
M: molecular mass (g/mol)
R: gas constant = 8.314 J/(mol·K)

Mass evaporation rate:
m_dot = Γ_evap × M × A_source

Thickness rate at source:
R_evap = (Γ_evap × M) / (N_A × ρ)
N_A: Avogadro's number
ρ: film density

Typical R_evap: 1-100 Å/s
(depends on T, material)

Mean Free Path - Knudsen Number

λ_mfp = kT / (√2 × π × d² × P)
d: molecular diameter (≈ 3 Å)
k: Boltzmann constant

For T=300K, d=3Å:
P = 10⁻³ Torr → λ_mfp ≈ 50 m
P = 10⁻⁵ Torr → λ_mfp ≈ 5000 m
P = 10⁻⁷ Torr → λ_mfp ≈ 500 km

Knudsen number:
Kn = λ_mfp / L_chamber

Kn >> 1: Molecular flow (ballistic)
Kn << 1: Viscous flow (collisional)

Evaporation requires Kn > 10
→ P < 10⁻⁴ Torr typical

Angular Distribution - Cosine Law

Flux density at angle θ:
Φ(θ) = Φ₀ × cos^n(θ)
θ: angle from source normal

For ideal point source:
n = 1 (Lambert's cosine law)

For extended source:
n > 1 (over-cosine)
n ≈ 1-3 (typical thermal sources)

Directional e-beam:
n ≈ 2-5 (focused beam)

Physical origin:
Surface atoms evaporate preferentially
along surface normal (momentum conservation)

Thickness Distribution on Substrate

Point source approximation:
d(r) = d₀ × cos^n(α) × cos(β) / h²

α: angle at source to point r
β: angle at substrate to point r
h: source-substrate distance
r: lateral distance from axis

On-axis (r=0):
d(0) = d₀

Off-axis:
cos(α) = h / √(h² + r²)
cos(β) = h / √(h² + r²) (parallel)

d(r) / d(0) = (1 + r²/h²)^(-(n+2)/2)

Uniformity degrades as r increases

Substrate Rotation for Uniformity

Planetary rotation:
• Substrate holder rotates
• Individual substrates rotate

Time-averaged thickness:
d_avg = (1/T) ∫₀^T d(r(t)) dt

For circular rotation at radius R:
r(t) = R + r₀ cos(ωt)

Uniformity improvement:
σ/μ < 2% (with rotation)
vs σ/μ > 20% (no rotation)

Optimal conditions:
R/h ≈ 0.5-0.7
ω × t_dep >> 10 revolutions

Electron Beam Evaporation

E-beam heating:
P_beam = V_accel × I_beam × η
V_accel: 5-10 kV
I_beam: 0.1-1 A
η: coupling efficiency (0.6-0.9)

Advantages vs thermal:
• Higher temperatures (>3000°C)
• Refractory materials (W, Ta, Mo)
• Localized heating (less contamination)
• Water-cooled crucible (less impurities)

Beam sweeping:
Magnetic deflection for uniform melt
Sweep frequency: 100-1000 Hz

Typical power density:
10⁴-10⁶ W/cm² at melt surface

Multi-Component Evaporation

For alloy or compound AB:

Evaporation rates differ:
Γ_A ≠ Γ_B

Film composition:
x_A(film) = Γ_A / (Γ_A + Γ_B)

≠ x_A(source) due to:
1. Different vapor pressures
2. Different sticking coefficients
3. Melt composition changes

Solutions:
• Co-evaporation (separate sources)
• Flash evaporation (fast heating)
• Composition monitoring (EQCM)
• Feedback control

Sticking Coefficient

s = (atoms stuck) / (atoms arriving)

Temperature dependent:
s(T) = s₀ × exp(-E_des / kT)
E_des: desorption energy

For metals on cold substrate:
s ≈ 1 (every atom sticks)

For low T_melt materials:
Need T_substrate << T_melt
e.g., Ag at RT: s ≈ 0.5

For molecules (organics):
s < 1 (re-evaporation)
Need substrate cooling

Condensation coefficient:
Often assumed s=1 for PVD

Film Growth Modes

Volmer-Weber (island growth):
γ_film > γ_substrate + γ_interface
Common: metals on insulators

Frank-van der Merwe (layer-by-layer):
γ_film + γ_interface < γ_substrate
Common: epitaxial growth

Stranski-Krastanov (mixed):
Few layers, then islands
Strain-driven

Adatom mobility:
D_surface ∝ exp(-E_diff / kT_substrate)

High T_substrate:
→ Smooth, large grains
Low T_substrate:
→ Rough, columnar, small grains

Deposition Rate Control

Quartz Crystal Microbalance (QCM):
Δf / f₀ = -(ρ_film × d_film) / (ρ_quartz × d_quartz)

Frequency shift:
Δf ∝ mass per unit area

Sensitivity:
6 MHz crystal: ~1 Å resolution

Feedback control:
PID loop adjusts source power
to maintain setpoint rate

Accuracy: ±1-2% thickness
Reproducibility: ±0.5%

Tooling factor:
Corrects QCM vs substrate geometry
Tf = d_substrate / d_QCM

Residual Gas Effects

Impurity incorporation:
At P = 10⁻⁶ Torr, Γ_gas ≈ 10¹⁶ cm⁻²s⁻¹

For R_dep = 10 Å/s ≈ 10¹⁵ atoms/cm²/s:
Gas/deposit ratio ≈ 10:1

If sticking s_gas = 0.01:
Impurity level ≈ 0.1 atomic%

Main contaminants:
H₂O → OH, O in film
CO, CO₂ → C, O in film
N₂ → N in film

Require:
Base pressure < 10⁻⁷ Torr
for high purity films (<0.01% impurity)

Energy of Arriving Atoms

Thermal evaporation:
E_atom ≈ 3kT_source / 2

For T_source = 1400°C = 1673K:
E_atom ≈ 0.22 eV

Very low energy compared to:
• Sputtering: 1-100 eV
• IBAD: 100-1000 eV

Consequences:
• Limited adatom mobility
• Porous films (low T_substrate)
• Poor step coverage
• High defect density

Need T_substrate > 0.3 T_melt
for dense, smooth films

Crucible Materials and Compatibility

Crucible selection depends on the material being evaporated, temperature requirements, and contamination constraints. Different evaporants require specific crucible materials to prevent reactions.

Crucible material selection:

Tungsten (W):
• T_max = 3000°C
• Compatible: Al, Cu, Au, Ag
• Incompatible: Si, reactive metals
• Pros: High temp, low cost
• Cons: Brittle, oxidizes

Molybdenum (Mo):
• T_max = 2600°C
• Compatible: Most metals
• Incompatible: Si, carbon
• Pros: Machinable, reusable
• Cons: Expensive

Graphite (C):
• T_max = 3000°C (vacuum)
• Compatible: Al, Cr, Fe
• Incompatible: Ti, Zr, carbide formers
• Pros: High temp, inexpensive
• Cons: Carbon contamination

Alumina (Al₂O₃):
• T_max = 2000°C
• Compatible: Most materials
• Incompatible: Si at high T
• Pros: Inert, insulating
• Cons: Thermal shock sensitive

BN (Boron Nitride):
• T_max = 2000°C
• Compatible: Most materials
• Pros: Inert, machinable
• Cons: Expensive

Electron Beam Gun Design

E-beam evaporation uses magnetically deflected electron beams to heat materials in water-cooled crucibles, enabling deposition of refractory materials with minimal contamination.

E-beam gun parameters:
Accelerating voltage: V_accel = 5-10 kV
Beam current: I_beam = 0.1-1 A
Power: P = V × I = 0.5-10 kW

Electron energy:
E_e = e × V_accel (eV)

Penetration depth (Kanaya-Okayama):
R = (0.0276 × A × E_e^1.67) / (ρ × Z^0.89)
A: atomic mass
ρ: density (g/cm³)
Z: atomic number

For 10 keV e⁻ on Cu:
R ≈ 1-2 μm

Magnetic deflection:
r_beam = (m_e × v) / (e × B)
B: magnetic field (Tesla)

Typical deflection:
B ≈ 0.01-0.1 T
θ_deflect = 90-270° (bent beam)

Beam sweeping:
f_sweep = 100-1000 Hz
Pattern: raster or circular
Purpose: uniform melt

Power density:
P_density = P / A_spot
A_spot ≈ 0.1-1 cm²
P_density ≈ 10⁴-10⁶ W/cm²

Multi-Source Co-Evaporation

Simultaneous evaporation from multiple sources enables alloy deposition, multilayers, and compositional gradients with precise flux control.

Co-evaporation from n sources:
Γ_total = Σ Γ_i × cos(θ_i) / r_i²

Film composition:
x_A = Γ_A / (Γ_A + Γ_B + ...)

Thickness rate:
R_total = Σ (Γ_i × M_i) / (ρ_film × N_A)

Source positioning:
• Angular separation: 30-60°
• Height staggering
• Rotation for uniformity

Flux calibration:
• Individual QCM sensors
• Tooling factors per source
• Cross-contamination minimized

Feedback control:
PID loops per source
Adjust T or power
Real-time composition

Applications:
• Ternary alloys (CuInGa)
• Multilayers (Al/Cr stack)
• Graded buffers (SiGe)
• Doped films (Al:ZnO)

Challenges:
• Cross-talk between sources
• Stability matching
• Thickness uniformity
• Calibration complexity

Reactive Evaporation

Introducing reactive gases during evaporation enables formation of compounds (oxides, nitrides) from metallic sources, but requires careful pressure and composition control.

Reactive evaporation process:

Metal evaporation + O₂ → M_xO_y
Metal evaporation + N₂ → M_xN_y

Reaction locations:
1. Gas phase (molecular)
2. Transit (atomic)
3. Substrate surface (adsorbed)

Oxygen incorporation:
P_O₂ / P_total ≈ 10⁻⁵ - 10⁻⁴

Higher P_O₂:
• Better stoichiometry
• Lower deposition rate
• Risk of target oxidation

Sticking probability:
s(O) >> s(M) typically
Excess O required

Partial pressure control:
P_O₂ = (Q_O₂ / Q_total) × P_total
Q_O₂: oxygen flow rate

Hysteresis behavior:
Similar to reactive sputtering
• Metallic mode: low P_O₂
• Oxide mode: high P_O₂
• Transition mode: optimal

Process window:
Narrow for stoichiometric films
Requires active feedback
Monitor optical transmission
or emission spectroscopy

Directional Deposition and Liftoff

The ballistic nature of evaporation enables directional deposition for liftoff lithography, where shadowing prevents sidewall coverage.

Liftoff geometry:

Undercut profile required:
w_top < w_bottom

Evaporation angle:
θ_evap = arctan(h_resist / w_undercut)

Critical angle:
θ_crit ≈ 70-80°
Above → sidewall coverage
Below → successful liftoff

Resist profile optimization:
• Bilayer resist (LOR/photoresist)
• Image reversal
• Angled development

Film thickness limit:
t_film < 0.3 × w_undercut

For w_undercut = 1 μm:
t_max ≈ 300 nm

Liftoff process:
1. Pattern resist
2. Evaporate metal
3. Dissolve resist (acetone, NMP)
4. Ultrasonic agitation
5. Rinse, dry

Yield issues:
• Fence formation (sidewall)
• Incomplete liftoff
• Pattern lifting

Mitigation:
• Optimize resist profile
• Control film stress
• Gentle liftoff chemistry
• Post-rinse inspection

Vacuum System Design and Pumping

Evaporation requires high vacuum (< 10⁻⁵ Torr) to ensure ballistic transport and minimize contamination. Proper pump selection and chamber design are critical.

Pump types for evaporation:

Roughing pump (mechanical):
• Rotary vane or scroll
• P_ultimate ≈ 10⁻³ - 10⁻² Torr
• Speed: 50-500 L/s
• Initial pumpdown

High vacuum pump:
• Turbomolecular pump (typical)
• Diffusion pump (legacy)
• Cryopump (UHV)

Turbo pump performance:
S_pump = 500-5000 L/s (N₂)
P_ultimate < 10⁻⁹ Torr
Compression ratio: 10⁹ (N₂)

Pumpdown time:
t = (V / S_eff) × ln(P_initial / P_final)

For V = 100 L, S = 1000 L/s:
t ≈ 0.1 × ln(760/10⁻⁵) ≈ 1.6 s
(theoretical, ignoring outgassing)

Effective pumping speed:
1/S_eff = 1/S_pump + 1/S_line
S_line = C (conductance)

Conductance (aperture):
C = 11.6 × A × √(T/M) L/s
A: area (cm²)
T: temperature (K)
M: molecular mass

Outgassing rate:
q = q₀ × t^(-α)
q₀: initial rate (Torr·L/s/cm²)
α ≈ 1 (typical)

For stainless steel:
q₀ ≈ 10⁻⁶ Torr·L/s/cm²
After 1 hour: q ≈ 10⁻⁷

Ultimate pressure:
P_ultimate = q_total / S_pump

Bakeout benefits:
T_bake = 150-200°C
t_bake = 12-48 hours
Reduces outgassing by 10-100×
Achieves P < 10⁻⁸ Torr

Load lock:
Separate chamber for loading
Prevents venting main chamber
Improves throughput
Reduces contamination

Rate Monitoring and Process Control

Precise thickness control requires real-time monitoring of deposition rate using quartz crystal microbalances (QCM) or optical methods.

Quartz Crystal Microbalance (QCM):

Sauerbrey equation:
Δf / f₀ = -2 × Δm / (A × ρ_q × t_q)
Δf: frequency shift (Hz)
f₀: resonant frequency (5-6 MHz)
Δm: mass deposited
ρ_q = 2.648 g/cm³ (quartz density)
t_q: quartz thickness

Mass sensitivity:
C_f = -2f₀² / (ρ_q × v_q)
v_q = 3.34×10⁵ cm/s (shear wave)

For 6 MHz crystal:
C_f ≈ -56.6 Hz·cm²/μg

Thickness from frequency:
d = -Δf × ρ_q × Z / (ρ_film × f₀² × N)
Z: acoustic impedance
N: frequency constant

Accuracy limitations:
• Assumes uniform film
• ρ_film must be known
• Temperature sensitivity (Δf/ΔT ≈ -20 ppm/°C)
• Valid up to ~10% Δf/f₀

Tooling factor:
TF = d_substrate / d_QCM
Accounts for geometric difference
TF = 0.5-2.0 (typical)
Calibration needed

Optical monitoring:
• Transmission/reflection
• Interference fringes
• Ellipsometry (ex-situ)

Feedback control:
PID controller adjusts power
Setpoint: target rate (Å/s)
Maintains ±1-2% stability

Process Integration and Future Trends

Advanced process integration combines multiple deposition techniques for optimal device performance.

Integration strategies:
• Multi-chamber cluster tools
• Sequential processing without vacuum break
• In-situ surface preparation
• Real-time endpoint detection

Future directions:
• Atomic layer control (ALD-like precision)
• Machine learning process optimization
• Digital twin modeling
• Autonomous process control

Vapor Pressure vs Temperature

Angular Distribution

Thickness Uniformity Map

Mean Free Path vs Pressure

Evaporation Rate vs Power

Film Microstructure Zones

QCM Frequency Shift