• Skip to main content
  • LOG IN
  • REGISTER
Coventor_New_LogoCoventor_New_LogoCoventor_New_LogoCoventor_New_Logo
  • COMPANY
    • ABOUT
    • CAREERS
    • PRESS RELEASE
    • PRESS COVERAGE
    • EVENTS
  • PRODUCTS
    • SEMulator3D®
      Semiconductor Process Modeling
    • CoventorMP®
      MEMS Design Automation
      • CoventorWare®
      • MEMS+®
  • SOLUTIONS
    • SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS
    • MEMS SOLUTIONS
  • RESOURCES
    • CASE STUDIES
    • BLOG
    • VIDEOS
  • CONTACT
  • SUPPORT
Contact Us
✕
  • Home
  • Coventor Blog
  • A Study of Next Generation CFET Process Integration Options
New Product Announcement – CoventorMP 1.2
October 16, 2019
Figure 3. Results of etch process applied against base structure (b, middle). The base structure displayed the expected etch results, while the structure with the larger initial opening (c, right) has unexpected topology at the bottom of the structure. The structure with the smaller opening and higher stair shape (a, left) experienced a reduced final etch opening and etch depth (compared to the base structure (b)) at the completion of the modeled etch process.
An Introduction to Semiconductor Process Modeling: Process Specification and Rule Verification
December 16, 2019

A Study of Next Generation CFET Process Integration Options

Published by Benjamin Vincent at November 20, 2019
Categories
  • Coventor Blog
Tags
  • bulk Si
  • CFET
  • DSOI
  • SOI
sample CFET architecture

Figure 1: Sample CFET architecture

Decision making is a critical step in semiconductor technology development. R&D semiconductor engineers must consider different design and process options early in the development of a next-generation technology. Established techniques such as Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) can be used to select among the most promising design and process choices. Once specific design and process methodologies are chosen, time and money is then spent on first tape-out and wafer processing.

How can engineers ensure that they have selected the optimal design and technology development pathway prior to tape-out? How do they know that critical technology decisions were made properly?

Often, a semiconductor process/layout option is selected based upon the best and lowest cost method to achieve a nominal targeted performance. Unfortunately, inherent variations in a process step are rarely considered as part of this technology decision-making process, even though these variations can be a critical factor in the success of a semiconductor development project. The effect of process variability is often only considered during the ramp-up phase of technology development. This lack of foresight can be expensive, since design and process changes needed to compensate for unexpected variability can be costly during later stages of technology developments. At the IEEE-S3S (SOI-3D-SUBTHRESHOLD MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY) conference in October 2019, a team from Coventor and imec presented an example of using SEMulator3D® virtual fabrication to improve technology decision making through early consideration of process variability.

sample CFET architecture
Figure 1: Sample CFET architecture

The presentation discussed three different ways of fabricating Complementary-Field Effect Transistors (CFETs). In Figure 1, a CFET architecture example consisting of 2 Nanowire Field Effect Transistors (p-type) on top of 2 Fin Field Effect Transistors (n-type) is shown. Note that an n- on p- type CFET could have also been considered for this study. For additional background information on CFET transistor technology, please read our blog “Practical Methods to Overcome the Challenges of 3D Logic Design”.

In the IEEE-S3S presentation, different process flow options were benchmarked for a CFET device to determine the most robust option with respect to process variability [1].  We compared the reliability of 3 different process flow options for the CFET, using 3 different substrates: bulk Si, Silicon-On-Insulator (SOI), or a Double Silicon-On-Insulator (DSOI).

In this study, we tested hundreds of virtual wafers for each of the process flows. The study was performed without requiring the fabrication of any actual test wafers. We included delta-to-target (variability) in our experiment for a number of parameters, such as film thickness, etch depth, etc. In the virtual experiment, we then identified key potential failure modes and determined the most robust process flow with respect to pre-defined variation assumptions (1, 2 and 3%). The results of this experiment are shown in Figure 2.

Percentage of pass runs and failed runs for three process flows and three process variation assumptions
Figure 2: Percentage of pass runs and failed runs (for 2 types of failures) for three process flows and three process variation assumptions (+/-1,3,5% on delta-to-target for specific determined parameters)

With the same magnitude of process variation applied to each of the process flows (substrates), the authors were able to identify the optimal design and technology pathway. In this instance, SOI was the most robust starting material under equivalent process variation assumptions, with the lowest probability of specific failures related to CFET fabrication.

If you wish to learn more about this study, please download the full paper “A Benchmark Study of Complementary-Field Effect Transistor (CFET) Process Integration Options: Comparing Bulk vs. SOI vs. DSOI Starting Substrates“.

Reference:

[1] B. Vincent et al., A Benchmark Study of Complementary-Field Effect Transistor (CFET) Process Integration Options: Comparing Bulk vs. SOI vs. DSOI Starting Substrates, S3S conference, Oct 2019

Share
Benjamin Vincent
Benjamin Vincent
Benjamin Vincent is the Worldwide Senior Manager of the semiconductor process and integration (SPI) team at Coventor. He has 15+ years of experience in semiconductor process engineering, including a position at imec (Belgium) from 2008 to 2012 as an epitaxy scientist in the advanced logic area. In 2013, he joined Intel in Santa Clara, CA, working on the development and launch of the first Intel Si photonics products (100G optical transceivers). Dr. Vincent joined Coventor in July 2017, first working for Coventor’s SPI group in Europe performing semiconductor process development and applications engineering. He received his MS Physics and Ph.D. in Material Science from the Institut Polytechnique de Grenoble, in Grenoble, France.

Related posts

Picture of a young man using virtual reality glasses from the 2018 movie “Ready Player One” from Warner Bros.

An Explanation of the Metaverse and 5 MEMS Technologies Solutions That Will Soon Help Make It Happen

January 18, 2023

An Explanation of the Metaverse and 5 MEMS Technologies Solutions That Will Soon Help Make It Happen


Read more - An Explanation of the Metaverse and 5 MEMS Technologies Solutions That Will Soon Help Make It Happen
Figure 4 displays a single image showing how surface roughness can get transferred to materials etched or deposited later. In this image, the surface roughness has led to scumming, which in turn caused lines to get shorted. The figure shows uneven lines due to surface roughness, with material left behind that crosses two of the lines and creates a short.

Figure 4: Surface roughness can get transferred to materials etched or deposited later. Here, the surface roughness has led to scumming, which in turn caused lines to get shorted.

January 13, 2023

Modeling of Line and Surface Roughness in Semiconductor Processing


Read more - Modeling of Line and Surface Roughness in Semiconductor Processing
Figure 2. Backside power delivery using buried power rails, based on [2] (not to scale).

Figure 2. Backside power delivery using buried power rails, based on [2] (not to scale).

December 19, 2022

The Other Side of the Wafer: The Latest Developments in Backside Power Delivery


Read more - The Other Side of the Wafer: The Latest Developments in Backside Power Delivery
Figure 1:   3D Gyroscope Model example with simulated pressure contours (left), and ambient cavity pressure vs. Q-factor graph with simulated and measured results (right) (courtesy: Murata)

Figure 1:   3D Gyroscope Model example with simulated pressure contours (left), and ambient cavity pressure vs. Q-factor graph with simulated and measured results (right) (courtesy: Murata)

November 28, 2022

Understanding Q-Factors in Gas Encapsulated MEMS Inertial Sensors


Read more - Understanding Q-Factors in Gas Encapsulated MEMS Inertial Sensors

Comments are closed.

Product Information

  • Product Offerings
  • Technical Support & Training
  • Licensing
  • System Requirements

Resources

  • Blog
  • Case Studies
  • Videos
  • 2018 MEMS Design Contest

Company

  • About
  • Press
  • Partners & Programs
  • Contact
© Copyright Coventor Inc., A Lam Research Company, All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy • Terms of Use
Contact Us
  • LOG IN
  • REGISTER