Converting Quarterly title
The Official
Technical Magazine
of AIMCAL
small AIMCAL logo
  Search

Vacuum Web Coating

Blogmaster: Dr. Charles A. Bishop

25

I needed to find the sputter-deposition rate for a few materials.  This sounded a simple task but it was not as easy as I thought. First, there are many different ‘rates’ quoted.  Some are a just a thickness per unit time others include the power applied and expressed as a dynamic deposition rate.  Again this sounds to be fairly simple.  However it became apparent that there was a very wide variation in the values quoted for each material.  There are several factors that cause this variation. The maximum power that can be put into the magnetron source very much depends on the design of the source, in particular the water cooling circuit, and the target construction and quality.

If the water cooling is limited there will be a point reached where there is more heat generated by the surface bombardment and sputtering process than is being removed by the water cooling. Once this point is reached any further power will further increase the target temperature. This can change the sputtering performance significantly and I have seen a source where increasing the power reduced the deposition rate.  As the source temperature increased it affected the ferrite magnets and the magnetic field strength reduced thus the plasma no longer could retain as many electrons and so the current carrying capacity declined and in turn the bombardment reduced and so the sputtering rate reduced.  Thus the water cooling critically affects the amount of power that can be applied and so different manufacturers may quote different deposition rates for the same material. 

The rate variation can further be widened by differences in the target thickness as well as being dependent on if the water cooling is direct onto the target material or onto a backing plate.  If a backing plate is used the target may or may not be bonded onto the backing plate. If the target is bonded there can still be variations in the thickness and material of the backing plate as well as the bonding technique. 

Added to this is the variation in magnetic design and variation in magnetic materials that may be used and hence the effectiveness of the electron capture.  This will affect the sputtering racetrack size and shape.

Another source of variation in the values quoted comes from how the power is used to produce the values.  Some take the whole target area and simply divide the power by the area. Others take only the area of the racetrack and thus these power density values would appear greater as the area is reduced.  Others limit the racetrack area further by taking the half width of the racetrack.

The greatest difficulty is that in many of the papers that quote values they do not disclose enough information about how the values are derived.  It becomes impossible to compare the deposition rates without knowing these details.     

Another aspect to be careful of is that many values are only calculated and not verified in practice.  Years ago experimenters such as Sigmund produced sputtering yield tables for different gases and different specific ion energies for many materials.  These tables can give a sputtering yield expressed in a ratio relative another material. The relevant ratio can then be used to convert the dynamic deposition rate of one material into a rate for any other material.  It is thus open to question how accurate this calculated deposition rate will be in reality.

Thus for any of you out there also wanting to find out the deposition rate available from a magnetron sputtering source I hope this will help you understand the variations of values that you might come across.

Posted in: Process

Comments

#222 Rafael García-Valverde
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 6:17 AM
Hi,

I'm trying to find the relathionship between the web speed (m/min) and the DDR (nm*m/(min*kW)) for ITO R2R large coaters.
Also, I would like to know if there exists a rule of thumb to calculate the needed pumping capacity (l/s) from the Roll size or the total Magnetron Powers.

Any advice or reference will be wellcome.

Thank you in advance.
#223 Charles Bishop
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:28 AM
The dynamic deposition rate is aimed at giving a measure that can be used to estimate the coating thickness onto substrates at different winding speeds or using different powers.

Often you can find published a depositon rate in nm/min. In a roll coater there is a deposition zone and this is a length (m) which can be converted into a time if the winding speed (m/s or m/min) is known. You can then multiply the deposition rate by the residence time through the deposition zone.

The deposition rate will be for a given power to the sputtering source. This is a more difficult value to fine out the true details for as it is sometimes given in kW/sq m where the full area of the target is used but others use only the area of the racetrack or even a only a proportion of the racetrack.

I suspect that some use the smaller area to make it appear their magnetic design and cooling efficiency allows a higher power density when in reality it does not.

So the deposition rate through the deposition zone can now be related to the power density to give the final dynamic deposition rate.

My advice would be to talk to magnetron sputtering source manufacturers. Some, such as Gencoa, will provide you with a diagram of the magnetron design and the magnetic field lines and the expected erosion profile along with maximum deposition rate for that design. They can change the magnetic strength and positioning to change the characteristics of the magnetron so they can offer a planar magnetron with maximum target material efficiency (for high cost targets) or maximum deposition rate, or maximum deposition uniformity. Some of these features are mutually exclusive. In designing for maximum coating uniformity the magnetic field may be modified at the ends of the magnetron source to improve the deposition rate at the substrate edges. However this can mean the erosion rate at the magnetron ends is faster than the the rest of the target and so the material efficiency is reduced.

Coupled to the decision about the key features of the magnetron source will be the choice of power supply. As targets can suffer from backscattering and arcing the management of these factors is also important. Many of the big glass coaters now have changed to twin rotatable sputtering sources so that the target rotation ensures the targets are kept as clean as possible and there is also always a good clean stable anode in the same place. This minimises arcing and maximises uptime and product reproducibility.

Some magnetron sputtering source manufacturers will offer a guarenteed deposition rate.

For ITO this may not be available as the rest of the system design can affect the deposition process. The pumping speed is one part of this but also the process monitoring and feedback loop can affect the process. This also depends on if you are sputtering from a ceramic ITO target or sputtering from an indium tin metal target fully reactively.

As far as I am aware there is no rule of thumb that is used. There are two parts to the calculation one is simply the total volume of the chamber and the speed with which you wish to pump it out to a given base pressure. Then you need to calculate the additional gas load that you will add. One value will be if all the gas supplies are fully open at their maximum value. The other calculation is the more difficult one to calculate and that is the total surface area you are deposition onto (substrate + ALL the shielding) along with the deposition rate will give you a consumption rate for the reactive gas.

Ideally you want the system pumping speed to be faster than the growing coating consumption rate. This is usually a very high pumping capacity and as this is a significant cost to any system many system manufacturers will try to reduce this pumping capacity. Where the system pumping speed for the reactive gas is lower than the consumption rate of the reactive gas by the growing coating there will be a hysteresis loop for the deposition process and the process control needs to be more precise and quicker. This is the case for most R2R systems.

I have seen one R2R ITO production system where there were 10 large (30") diffusion pumps. This meant the whole of the base of the system was completely taken up with diffusion pumps. This resulted in the fasted ITO system I have seen so far.

I hope that this helps you.
Charles Bishop
#224 Rafael García-Valverde
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 1:51 PM
Thank you for the explanation, I realise that detailed calculations are going to be more complex.
I'm trying to do an estimation about the typical power consumption in large R2R Coater.

ICould you check if the values are coherent with reality for a ITO R2R coater?:

Substrate=PET (1800m x 0.46m x 50micron)

Web speed: 2m/min (The typical value I found among manufacturers)

3 Magnetrons(1m wide): 1.3kW per planar magnetron, and 2.4kW per rotative magnetron.

Vaccum= 9 pumps (each one=1100W turbomolecular + 500 W rotative)

Water cooling (closed circuit per magnetron+pump)= 500 l/s (chiller=1000W+pump=300)

Web motion= 2 Electric motors (rewind and undwind)x 1500 W (the weight of the roll is aroun 70kg).


Thank you very much.

#225 Charles Bishop
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 2:19 PM
The world production capacity for ITO is large but for many producers they are unable to compete on price and performance or both.

If you arre trying to cost up a system it may well be giving a false impression to be taking average speeds and deposition rates because although this may produce ITO coated film it may not be easily sold into a competitive market.

The best of the R2R coaters can deposit most grades of ITO at ~10m/min. They are coating at web widths of >1m wide. I know some of the faster machines had 6 or 8 magnetrons around two deposition drums. So the power reuirements would be considerably higher for the system but if you do a power consumption /sq m it is lower.

Generally to minimise the downtime the roll lengths should be as long as possible in production. 1800m sounds a bit short. I know many would be able to coat 10km of film if not longer.

The number of motors you have is low. More typically you would want 5v drive motors for a single deposition drum system because you would want to isolate the tension on the unwind roll from the tension applied around the deposition drum and the isolate the tension around the deposition drum from the rewind tension. Hence needing a drive for each of the unwind roll, high wrap tension isolation roll, deposition drum, tension isolation roll and rewind roll. If you go to a system with a second deposition drum this would rise to 7 drives because of needing to isolate the tension around the first and second deposition drums.

Then depending on the size of the system the pumps would need to be sized accordingly. I saw one system that was used for other materials but included ITO that was of the order of 1m wide and it had 29 x 1000 l turbopumps on it.

So it depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you are wanting to knwo the true cost of a system that would be competitive in the ITO market it needs to be competitive in speed, quality, arc minimisation, up-time, etc and that is a different system to an R & D system that can run slowly and does not have to produce product at a competitive price.

Most often when I specify a system I do not specify the pumping speed or size of pumps. I would specify a base pressure to be achieved within a specific time and the stability of the process over an extended production period. Between the initial specification and final specification I would try to increase the pumping capacity from what the supplier suggfested to the next size up of pumps wherever possible, based on the philosophy that they will be trying to keep their quote down to be cost competitive and my own preference that you can never have too much pumping for a reactive process. (not scientific but a reasonable working method -- manufacturers recommended pump size +1)

In addition to the turbomolecular pumps there is usually the cryopumping panels (polycolds) that getter the water vapour and that needs to be added to your power consumption list.

I hope this helps.
CAB

#226 Rafael García-Valverde
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 6:57 AM
Hi again Dr Bishop,

Only some simple questions more.
In huge R2R coater (10 km of roll-length for example) how many and how big targets is possible to have?
I have understood that the target consumption is one of the limiting factor for the length of the roll. I mean:10km length x 2 m width x 70 nm thickness is around 0.0014m3 of ITO on the substrate, with a 25% of material use means a 0.0056m3 (40kg) of needed ITO target.

Are there commercialy available this kind of targets?
Is possible a huge R2R coater with several targets?

Thank you
#227 Charles Bishop
Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:51 AM
Off hand I do not know what is the largest target that can be produced. The fact that glass coaters are producing ITO coated glass and the largest of these coats 6m x 4m sheets of glass it would imply that targets of at least 4m (or somewhat larger to get uniformity over the 4m so probably around 4.5m ).

The size may also depend on whether you are depositing from the metal alloy or from a ceramic ITO target. The ceramic ITO targets are harder to produe with high quality and so will cost more but the deposition process can be more tolerant and easier to manage.

Many producers use the rotatable magnetron designs where the quantity of material is considerably more than for the planar magnetrons and so the lifetime of the targets is longer than for the planar cathodes. Added to this is the fact that you are using multiple cathodes all depositing sequentially to help increase the winding speed and so the quantity used per target per run is reduced.

I am searching my files for a photograph I thought I had of the larger ITO coating system where they had the 10 large diffusion pumps so you could see something of the size of the system. I have not yet retrieved it. If you are interested in seeing the photograph please e-mail me at cabuk8@btinternet.com and as soon as I find it I will send it to you.

CAB

Post Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

CAPTCHA image
Enter the code shown above:

Blogmaster

Charles Bishop photo

Dr. Charles A. Bishop

Charles is a toolmaker by trade after completing a mechanical engineering apprenticeship. He then entered University and obtained a Bachelors degree in materials engineering with a Diploma in Industrial Studies. During his final year he first started work on vacuum based research, helping develop a process for manufacturing titanium based bone implants for tendon location. He went on to obtain a Masters degree and Doctorate following further research into vacuum deposition processes. During this time and as a postgraduate he also worked as a consultant.

Charles next spent time in industry working for various divisions of ICI including polyesters, nylon, Imagedata, Flex Products Inc., and explosives as well as contributing to other projects. In 1998 he took the opportunity to return to consultancy work and set up his own company.

Charles has more than 30 years experience in vacuum deposition mainly onto flexible webs. He has regularly contributed papers to conferences and recently has edited this blog on behalf of AIMCAL as well as being one of their presenters for various webinars and the more formal Converting School courses.

Charles has also published 2 books, Vacuum deposition onto webs, films and foils and Roll-to-roll vacuum deposition of barrier coatings.