• 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
  • Controlling Variability using Semiconductor Process Window Optimization
Challenges and Solutions for Silicon Wafer Bevel Defects during 3D NAND Flash Manufacturing
May 21, 2019
Top view of slit and channel hole at different nodes
Advanced Patterning Techniques for 3D NAND Devices
July 31, 2019

Controlling Variability using Semiconductor Process Window Optimization

Published by Benjamin Vincent at June 25, 2019
Categories
  • Coventor Blog
Tags
  • Lithography and Patterning
  • Process Window Optimization
  • SEMulator3D
Lam Semiconductor Equipment

Courtesy: Lam Research

To ensure success in semiconductor technology development, process engineers must set the allowed ranges for wafer process parameters. Variability must be controlled, so that final fabricated devices meet required specifications. These specifications include critical dimensions, electrical performance requirements, and other device characteristics. Pre-production or ramp-up production Si wafers, which are processed in the fab but not yet optimized, are the usual source of test data needed to understand and control this variability.

Courtesy:  Lam Research
Courtesy: Lam Research

Cross-correlation and analysis of thousands of test data points is often required to optimize and calibrate process parameters and meet device specifications. Gathering this necessary data using non-optimized, pre-production wafers is very costly. Reducing the number of pre-production test wafers required to set the optimal process parameter ranges (known as the “process window”) will dramatically reduce the cost and risk of semiconductor technology development.

Addressing the Challenge of Process Optimization

Coventor, a LAM Research Company, is addressing this challenge with the introduction of a new feature in SEMulator3D® called Process Window Optimization (PWO). This feature expands the Analytics capabilities of SEMulator3D, providing an automated method for process window optimization. PWO can substantially reduce the number of pre-production test wafers needed to meet final device specifications. More importantly, it can accurately predict maximum success rates achievable for existing processes under consideration.

Process Window Optimization

Process Window Optimization in SEMulator3D follows a structured methodology. First, a user builds and calibrates a virtual model of their device technology (a “digital twin” wafer). Virtual metrology steps are set in the model to measure selected fabrication/device parameters, just like performing real physical metrology on test wafers. The virtual metrology steps can be used to monitor compliance with device specifications. A specification (min/max values) for each of the metrology steps must then be provided for the Analytics studies. For each chosen process parameter, a process window is also established. Nominal values of the process parameters (such as the target value and allowed variability measured by standard deviation) are set according to the capabilities of the fab where the device will be manufactured.

Next, a user executes a virtual Design of Experiments (DOE) corresponding to a set of experiments performed on physical wafers. The experiment must include a defined search space for each of the selected parameters. To obtain statistical significance, the simulated experiment is run many times across the user-defined parameter space. The Process Window Optimization algorithm then provides an optimized value for each process parameter, maximizing the percentage of the selected fabrication/device parameters that meet their metrology specifications (“in-spec percentage” or “inSpec%). This part of the workflow is shown in Figure 1.

Depiction of the analytics workflow in SEMulator3D including the PWO feature
Figure 1: Depiction of the analytics workflow in SEMulator3D including the PWO feature

Once calculations are complete, the target and standard deviation values of each process parameter can be modified by the user, to understand the direct impact of these modifications on the metrology in-spec percentage (see Figure 2).

The PWO interface in SEMulator3D reporting (i) the distribution of each metrology step, (ii) the respective and overall in specification
Figure 2: The PWO interface in SEMulator3D reporting (i) the distribution of each metrology step, (ii) the respective and overall in specification

An Example of PWO using SAQP Patterning

This methodology will be illustrated using a prior model discussed in a published report entitled “Improving SAQP Patterning Yield using Virtual Fabrication and Advanced Process Control”. In our current PWO study, patterned lines and spacing were measured by virtual metrology and were all targeted at 16nm with a success criterion of +/-10%. We only varied two parameters in this study: the thicknesses of spacer 1 and spacer 2. Spacer 1 and Spacer 2 nominal targets were set at 13.5 nm and 18.8nm, respectively, with the same standard deviation of 0.2nm. The search spaces were defined for those two parameters as 11.7nm to 15.3nm and 17nm to 20.6nm, respectively. A total of 1000 runs were executed.

Figure 3 displays a graph containing all process parameter combinations considered in the DOE (with each point representing one run). The blue points represent runs which fulfilled the success criterion of having all metrology measurements at 16nm +/-10%.

DOE illustration with all runs executed and successful runs highlighted in blue
Figure 3: DOE illustration with all runs executed and successful runs highlighted in blue

As shown in Figure 4, assuming a 0.2nm standard deviation for spacer 1 and spacer 2 thicknesses, the PWO system reported an increase in metrology in-specification percentage from 69.6 to 74.6% (maximized) when changing the spacer 1 nominal value from 13.5nm to 13.4nm and spacer 2 nominal from 18.8nm to 18.9nm. Moreover, reducing the spacer thickness standard deviation from 0.2nm to 0.18nm increased the metrology in-specification percentage to 85.1%.

PWO reporting for % in-specification value, based upon meanstandard deviation values for each process parameter
Figure 4: PWO reporting for % in-specification value, based upon mean standard deviation values for each process parameter

Conclusion

This simple example (with only two parameters considered) was chosen for ease of illustration using a 2D representation (Figure 3). This methodology, however, can easily be extended for much more complex cases. For example, device technology co-optimization (DTCO) for multiple and interdependent process steps can be analyzed using PWO to perform more complex technology yield optimization.

In conclusion, the new SEMulator3D PWO technology offers several key insights. It can:

  1. Accurately predict a maximum success rate achievable for existing process (fab) capabilities
  2. Determine the nominal process conditions required to achieve a maximum success rate
  3. Define the process variation control improvements required to increase the success rate of a semiconductor process to a specific target

PWO is highly time and cost-effective, since the DOE only requires a limited number of processed Si wafers for virtual model calibration and can be used well in advance of volume production. This contrasts with fab-based testing, which requires a substantial number of processed Si wafers and poses a high risk to device commercialization timelines. The PWO capabilities in SEMulator3D can accurately predict the outcomes for existing processes under consideration, and substantially reduce semiconductor technology development timelines and risk.

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

Left to right: SEMulator3D virtual structures of NON, Low K and Airgap spacers for a DRAM cell, with highlighted SiO2, Polysilicon, Silicon, Si3N4, TIN and W layers

Fig. 1: (a) NON, (b) Low k and (c) Airgap spacer

February 28, 2023

A Comparative Evaluation of DRAM bit-line spacer integration schemes


Read more - A Comparative Evaluation of DRAM bit-line spacer integration schemes
Figure 1 contains physical drawings of a Disk Resonating Gyroscope. Figure 1(a) displays an isometric view of the layout, including the DRG body, grounded electrodes, and the input electrodes and sense electrodes for channels 1 and 2. Figure 1(b) shows a detailed view of the radial electrodes as an inset to Figure 1(a), displaying gaps, thicknesses and other dimensions in microns.

Figure 1: DRG. Figure a) isometric view of the layout. Figure b) details of the radial electrodes.

February 27, 2023

Using Machine Learning to Develop a Real-Time Model of a MEMS Disk Resonating Gyroscope


Read more - Using Machine Learning to Develop a Real-Time Model of a MEMS Disk Resonating Gyroscope
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

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