Three-dimensional detection and quantification of defects in SiC by optical coherence tomography

Pei Ma; Jiajie Ni; Jiawei Sun; Xuedian Zhang; Junyin Li; Hui Chen

doi:10.1364/AO.384174

Applied Optics
Vol. 59,
Issue 6,
pp. 1746-1755
(2020)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.384174

Three-dimensional detection and quantification of defects in SiC by optical coherence tomography

Pei Ma, Jiajie Ni, Jiawei Sun, Xuedian Zhang, Junyin Li, and Hui Chen

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Pei Ma, Jiajie Ni, Jiawei Sun, Xuedian Zhang, Junyin Li, and Hui Chen, "Three-dimensional detection and quantification of defects in SiC by optical coherence tomography," Appl. Opt. 59, 1746-1755 (2020)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Check for updates

Related Topics
Table of Contents Category
- Instrumentation and Measurements
Optics & Photonics Topics
?

The topics in this list come from the Optics and Photonics Topics applied to this article.

About this Article
History
- Original Manuscript: December 2, 2019
- Revised Manuscript: January 3, 2020
- Manuscript Accepted: January 13, 2020
- Published: February 19, 2020

Abstract

Silicon carbide (SiC) is widely used in high power electronic devices. However, defects on the SiC significantly reduce the yield and decrease the performance of SiC. Accurate detection of the defects is essential in the process control. We demonstrated a noninvasive three-dimensional (3D) defect detection method for SiC using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Defects including the triangular defects, hexagonal voids, grain boundaries, and carrot defects were inspected and analyzed on SiC wafers. The 3D images of defects acquired with OCT provided detailed information on the 3D structures and dimensions of defects, and the locations and orientations of the defects inside the wafers. This technique was not only useful for rapid defect screening in the process control, it was also extremely helpful in understanding the formation mechanism of these defects in SiC.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Quantification of plant morphology and leaf thickness with optical coherence tomography

Jos de Wit, Sebastian Tonn, Guido Van den Ackerveken, and Jeroen Kalkman
Appl. Opt. 59(33) 10304-10311 (2020)

Subsurface defect detection in materials using optical coherence tomography

M. D. Duncan, M. Bashkansky, and J. Reintjes
Opt. Express 2(13) 540-545 (1998)

Three-dimensional imaging and quantification of mouse ovarian follicles via optical coherence tomography

Marcello Magri Amaral, Aixia Sun, Yilin Li, Chao Ren, Anh Blue Truong, Saumya Nigam, Zexu Jiao, Ping Wang, and Chao Zhou
Biomed. Opt. Express 14(7) 3213-3224 (2023)

Previous Article Next Article

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (12)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (4)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Wafer	Diameter (mm)	Thickness (µm)	Doping density ( ${c m}^{- 3}$ )	Epitaxial thickness (µm)
S1	50.88	371
S2	50.90	367
E1	101.60	318	$5.64 \times 10^{15}$	32
E2	101.60	320	$9.35 \times 10^{15}$	15

Wafer	Defect No.	R (µm)	$α$ (°)	L (µm)	D (µm)	Wafer	Defect No.	R (µm)	$α$ (°)	L (µm)	D (µm)
E1	1	23.9	85.9	116.3	20.7	E1	13	26.1	48.6	117.1	13.1
	2	19.1	55.5	119.0	18.8		14	12.7	38.5	119.6	9.0
	3	25.4	35.7	122.4	21.7		15	28.3	82.4	119.2	9.7
	4	30.6	72.2	115.7	17.0		16	11.4	27.7	122.8	6.5
	5	17.2	54.7	119.2	11.5		17	32.4	75.7	122.9	15.1
	6	19.3	66.0	120.4	17.5		18	17.3	40.2	122.2	12.1
	7	15.9	37.2	121.4	17.3	E2	19	11.0	85.2	168.6	5.7
	8	24.9	72.2	121.1	20.5		20	20.2	70.2	166.3	10.1
	9	25.2	44.2	116.5	14.8		21	23.2	72.8	169.3	11.2
	10	31.2	69.9	126.1	16.1		22	31.2	80.5	168.1	8.6
	11	14.9	47.7	119.0	7.0		23	12.1	35.6	167.2	10.3
	12	10.4	24.9	119.5	5.0		24	23.5	56.3	170.2	7.7

void	$t$ (µm)	A (µm)	B (µm)	$θ$ (°)						d (µm)	x (°)
1	7.9	318.1	164.8	123.5	118.0	121.2	123.9	117.6	119.2	82.2	9.5
2	5.7	89.0	89.2	117.2	118.4	120.4	124.1	121.5	118.6	265.6	9.3
3	5.2	125.3	75.5	125.7	118.5	121.7	126.1	118.8	115.8	102.7	0.0
4	3.7	141.1	124.0	121.5	123.0	124.4	117.4	124.3	116.8	20.1	0.0
5	15.1	104.0	82.2	120.0	123.3	120.1	118.7	122.2	119.1	186.7	8.4
6	12.3	62.4	41.8	121.9	120.9	120.8	124.5	119.2	119.6	108.6	8.2
7	13.9	85.3	67.8	118.7	121.7	116.0	118.6	119.2	122.8	69.5	0.0

Wafer	Diameter (mm)	Thickness (µm)	Doping density ( ${c m}^{- 3}$ )	Epitaxial thickness (µm)
S1	50.88	371
S2	50.90	367
E1	101.60	318	$5.64 \times 10^{15}$	32
E2	101.60	320	$9.35 \times 10^{15}$	15

Wafer	Defect No.	R (µm)	$α$ (°)	L (µm)	D (µm)	Wafer	Defect No.	R (µm)	$α$ (°)	L (µm)	D (µm)
E1	1	23.9	85.9	116.3	20.7	E1	13	26.1	48.6	117.1	13.1
	2	19.1	55.5	119.0	18.8		14	12.7	38.5	119.6	9.0
	3	25.4	35.7	122.4	21.7		15	28.3	82.4	119.2	9.7
	4	30.6	72.2	115.7	17.0		16	11.4	27.7	122.8	6.5
	5	17.2	54.7	119.2	11.5		17	32.4	75.7	122.9	15.1
	6	19.3	66.0	120.4	17.5		18	17.3	40.2	122.2	12.1
	7	15.9	37.2	121.4	17.3	E2	19	11.0	85.2	168.6	5.7
	8	24.9	72.2	121.1	20.5		20	20.2	70.2	166.3	10.1
	9	25.2	44.2	116.5	14.8		21	23.2	72.8	169.3	11.2
	10	31.2	69.9	126.1	16.1		22	31.2	80.5	168.1	8.6
	11	14.9	47.7	119.0	7.0		23	12.1	35.6	167.2	10.3
	12	10.4	24.9	119.5	5.0		24	23.5	56.3	170.2	7.7

Abstract

Cited By

Figures (12)

Tables (4)

Applied Optics