center for adaptive optics 15 nov 1999 meeting major william d. cowan, ph.d. air force research...
Post on 12-Jan-2016
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Center for Adaptive Optics15 Nov 1999 Meeting
Major William D. Cowan, Ph.D.Air Force Research Laboratory
Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, AFRL/MLWright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433
Microfabricated Segmented Micromirror Arrays
Microfabricated Segmented Micromirror Arrays
1
2
• Introduction• Foundry Processes• MUMPs 19 MEM-DM• Continuous Facesheet Designs• Micromirror Surface Figure• Proposed CfAO SUMMiT Design
Overview
3
Problem: Make practical deformable mirrors (DMs) for adaptive optics (AO) in foundry microfabrication processes
DMs among the most expensive components in AO systems: $1000/channel
Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) ideally suited for optical applications - deflections consistent with optical wavelengths - photolithographic (parallel) fabrication of parts with identical characteristics
Deflection uniformity critical for low cost AO (eliminate 100% testing)
Use foundry fabrication processes to reduce cost for low volume applications
Lessons learned applicable to specialized microfabrication processes
(Reduce cost, size, weight, power dissipation)
Introduction
4
Foundry Process Descriptions
SUMMiT MMPOLY3(2 m) SACOX3(1.5-2 m, CMP) MMPOLY1+2(2.5 m) SACOX1(2 m) MMPOLY0(0.3 m) SiN(0.8 m) Oxide(0.6 m) Substrate
MUMPs Metal(0.5 m) Poly2(1.5 m) Oxide2(0.75 m) Poly1 (2.0 m) Oxide1(2 m) Poly0(0.5 m) SiN(0.6 m) Substrate
Trade fill factor, mirror size, array size(wiring depth)Self-planarization may help fill factor
Planarization decouples mirror and actuator design
etch access holes
$3k2 mos.
$10k? mos.
5
partial Poly2 self-planarization
1.5m wide Poly1 anchors
Incomplete etch of 1.5m wide Poly1 gap
wiring(MMPOLY0)anchor
actuator upperelectrode(MMPOLY1+2)
flexure
mirror (MMPOLY3)
mirror to actuator vias
etch access holes3 m 3 m
MUMPs self-planarization SUMMiT with CMP Planarization
MUMPs vs. SUMMiT Planarizaton
6
Deflection of electrostatic piston micromirror
dV A
k t d=
−ε 2
22 ( )
Electrostatic Piston Micromirror
d
gt
Movable top electrode
Fixed bottom electrode
k, spring constant
V
A
top electrode, mirror plate
flexure anchor
to bottom electrode
k is a function of flexure number, geometry, andmaterial stiffness (note how unidirectional layout mitigates the effect of residual stress)t is fixed by sacrificial layer thickness of processd is defined by optical modulation requirementsTrade k and A for desired V, uniformity, yield, etc.
, for d=0 to ~t/3
7
Testing Piston MicromirrorsGood deflection uniformity on die (wafer) but not necessarily die to dieDynamic laser interferometer testing is expensive in time/complexity
Def
lect
ion
(n
m)
0 5 10 15 200
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Control voltage (V)
Static fringemeasurementV316=18 V
dynamic laser interferometermeasured modeled
Static fringe technique developed for interferometric microscope is very fastSimple procedure: Toggle electrode voltage between 0 and V, fringe lines appear static for deflection=/2, ,…, where is test wavelength
Interferometric microscope video also provides rapid characterization of yield and deflection uniformity
With good fit to model, only needone data point for characterization
Only need one data point from onedevice in an array
But why not model this simplestructure and avoid characterizationtesting?? Material Properties??
8
Segmented MEM-DM (M19)
1212 Array203 m center-to-center mirror spacingStroke ~0.6 mTrapped oxide platePoly0 wires under flexuresPost foundry metallization requiredFill Factor: ~77%
M19 Piston Micromirror Element
M19 MEM-DM Image
9
HeNeM1
Iris
BS1
Ll
Ls
MEM-DM
MEMSControl
PC
BeamExpander
AberratingLens
La
Lt1LF
LMBS2
PSF
Image
ImageCamera
PC
Lt2
PSFCamera
PC
OpticalAttenuator
OpticalPower Meter
Lw1
Lw2
Adaptive Optics Test Bed
M19 Optical Measurements
Optical input power normalized using attenuator and power meterIncrease magnification of far field pattern on PSF cameraPSF camera frame rate used to scale measured intensities
10
M19 MEM-DM Aberration Correction
Incident Optical Signal
Plan
eR
OC
=0.
70 m
ROC=0.35 mR
OC
=1.
60 m
Plane ROC=0.80 m
ME
M-D
M F
igu
re 1.0 (208@500 Hz) 0.07 (174 @40 Hz) 0.04 (108@40 Hz)
0.09 (96@99 Hz) 0.76 (158@500 Hz) 0.05 (121@40 Hz)
0.18 (91@203 Hz) 0.04 (97 @40 Hz) 0.27 (115 @244 Hz)
11
M19 MEM-DM Demo
12
Status of MUMPs 19 Design
Still have the same device operating in the AFIT AO testbed• Approaching 2 years of intermittent operation exposed to laboratory air• Stan Rogers using to demonstrate phase retrieval
Delivered 2 packaged devices to Dr Wild and Dr Kibblewhite at University of Chicago, Yerkes Observatory
• Don’t know status of their work, but recently had inquiry from MEMS Optical who had seen MUMPs 19 devices while visiting U of C
May have a couple left - have been requested by USAF Academy
For quick (~4 months), moderate performance, low-cost devices this design can be shoehorned into a 0.5 cm square die with 4 copies per MUMPs die site
• Will yield >50 devices for $3k + packaging costs• Still need post foundry metallization
13
0 203 m 406 m 0 203 m 406 m
Hei
ght (
nm)
Hei
ght (
nm)
378.2
1349.0
360.
7
300.
6
240.
5
180.
4
120.
1
60.1
1213
.5
1011
.3
202.
340
4.5
606.
880
9.0
Heights (nm)
18 V 21 V
MUMPs Continuous Facesheet DM Influence Function
Interferometric Microscope Image Observed actuator coupling ~40% in good agreement with predicted
Actuator Couplingk
kact
FS
= 1
4 1
100%⏐⏐⏐
⏐↵√+
↔
14
Single element of MUMPs 21 CF DM 144 actuatorsWired as a defocus corrector - elements equidistant from center are connectedOnly 16 voltages requiredActuators can flatten residual stress induced deformation
0 V applieddeformation due to residual stress
21 V applied to center 4 elements
21 V applied to 8 elements
Interferometric microscope images of MUMPs 21 DM center
etch holes
print-through ofactuator structure
MUMPs 21 CF MEM-DM
15
Potential applications - optical aberration correction - laser communication - direct write photolithography - laser machining - consumer electro-optics
Optical Efficiency/Imaging Performance
- fill factor (% reflective surface area) - mirror surface figure -- curvature -- print through -- reflectivity - array surface figure (uniformity)
IdealCurvatureFF<100%
Print-through
Micromirrorarray surface
Far field
Micromirror Surface Figure
16
1212Trapped oxide platePoly0 wires under flexuresPost foundry metalFill Factor: 77%
M19 M19_A
M19_B M19_C
88 Trapped oxide plateMUMPs metalFill Factor: 67.4%
88 Trapped oxide platePost foundry metalFill Factor: 67%
88 Poly2 mirror plate attached to actuator by viasPost foundry metalFill Factor: 71.9%
MUMPs Mirror DesignsAll arrays employ 203 m center-to-center mirror spacing
MUMPs flexures 4 m wide for better yield and deflection uniformity
17
SUMMiT Mirror Design
wiring(MMPOLY0)
anchor
actuator upperelectrode(MMPOLY1+2)
flexure
metallization stop &actuator interconnect
mirror (MMPOLY3)
mirror to actuator vias10 m 10 m
etch access holes3 m 3 m
As-drawn fill-factor: 95%Post foundry metallization required
203 m center-to-center mirror spacing
gap 3 m
18
Micromirror Surface Characterization
Instrument:Zygo Maxim 3-DLaser interferometric microscopeAccuracy: 3 nm RMSManual scan of mirror middle to get Peak-to-Valley (PV)
MUMPs devices - only Poly0 electrode under mirror - curvature due to residual material stresses in plate structure - metal ~50 MPa tensile - polys ~10 MPa compressive - trapped oxide ?
M19_A
False color image of surface height
Mesh of surface figure
Scan line
PV=303 nm
19
Micromirror Surface Characterization
False color image of surface height
Mesh of surface figure
Scan line
PV=291 nm
SUMMiTSUMMiT - design employs actuator and wiring under mirror plate - planarization incomplete - print-through of underlying structures - some residual stress curvature
Zygo results confirmed by checking an unreleased die on stylus surface profilometer
Note!:Devices fabricated on early SUMMiT runsPlanarization targeted at mechanical vice optical flatnessSandia has now fixed problem (new SUMMiT Optical process)
20
Image
PSF
Optical Perf vs. Micromirror FigureM19_A MUMPs Metal303.4 nm PV concave
M19_B AFIT Metal55.6 nm (convex)
SUMMiT AFIT Metal 291.1 nm PV
(print-through + concave)<
21
Reflected Optical PSFMirror Description Optical Efficiency Peak Intensity Effective FWHM Power Normalized Normalized Fill Factor Normalized
% % % % % MUMPs Plane Mirror 76.3 100 100 100 100M19 No Metal 29.2 38.3 5.2 22.8 104M19_A MUMPs Metal 56.9 74.5 0.6 10.0 221M19 AFIT Metal 1 62.6 82.0 24.9 49.9 98M19 AFIT Metal 2 60.8 79.7 25.8 50.8 99M19_B AFIT Metal 53.6 70.2 35.7 59.8 105M19_C AFIT Metal 30.0 39.3 7.8 28.0 117SUMMiT No Metal 44.0 57.7 7.8 28.0 116SUMMiT AFIT Metal 1 66.0 86.5 7.2 26.7 109SUMMiT AFIT Metal 2 67.5 88.4 6.9 26.2 111
Optical Measurement Summary
22
Surface Figure Study Results
Fill factor and optical efficiency (power) not good metrics- don’t measure imaging performance
Surface figure is most important factor for imaging performance
“Good” polysilicon piston micromirror arrays require- planarization- residual stress control/characterization
Sputtered chromium/gold metallization promising
Proposed fabrication approach- design in an initial convex curvature using residual stresses- sample lot (release and measure curvature)- design metallization to yield flat mirror surfaces- metallize lot
23
Latest SUMMiT Optical Design
32 32 Array of segmented micromirrors (1024 total)100 m pitch (center-to-center), Nominal fill-factor ~95% Employs unproven Row-Column address scheme
• Only 2N wires for N2 array• Wiring limits maximum array size in foundry processes • Row-Column (line) addressing demonstrated for bistable mirror arrays• Pulse width & pulse amplitude modulation also demonstrated
(Rounsaval AFIT thesis)
StatusOnly a few samples tested - 15 min partial, 30, 45 min release etches (1:1, HF:HCl)Mirror element flatness <30 nm peak to valleyUnreleased array(s) shows global convex curvature
• May be artifact of CMP process, or residual stress in oxide• Probably can minimize by design “tricks”• Can also correct out or “flatten” array in use
Discuss findings with Sandia to determine cause/fix
24
SUMMiT 32 x 32 Row/Col Array
One array so far had problems with MMPOLY3 attachment to underlying actuators
•May suggest non-uniformity of CMP oxide thickness across wafers•Have heard CMP “wedge” problem anecdotes
Actuator-only global curvature is convex(~120nm peak to valley)
25
Interferometer Images
MUMPs 19
MUMPs PlaneMirror (Gold) SUMMiT Optical
= 632 nm
26
Testbed Images & PSFs (Preliminary data)
MUMPs 19MUMPs PlaneMirror (Gold)
SUMMiT OpticalPartial Release(?)
SUMMiT OpticalFull Release (30/45?)
27
Proposed CfAO SUMMiT Design
128 to 256 element array of segmented micromirrorsSingle wire per element address scheme (die size/wire bond limited design)
• Wire-bonded electrical connectionsMinimum 100 m pitch (center-to-center)
• Larger element size for increased fill & lower operating voltage• Have 128 element 203 m designs on 0.5 cm square die• Trade of bond pad space & mirror size required to optimize
Minimum fill-factor ~95%Minimum stroke: 0.5 m Mirror element flatness <30 nm peak to valleyOptimize global flatness by design and study of process using current arrays
StatusHave had initial discussions with Sandia about approach
• Want design that they will agree to release/package/bond• Standard module run should yield 50-75 finished parts (untested)
Will explore progress of metallization - use if available• Otherwise design for ease of post-foundry (user) metallization
top related