• 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
  • MEMS integration: A Matter of Perspective
Coventor’s Stephen Breit Highlighted as Featured Speaker at MEPTEC MEMS Symposium
May 23, 2012
The stack of software and hardware layers in a sensor-enabled smart phone or tablet
Standardization plays an important role in MEMS integration
July 1, 2012

MEMS integration: A Matter of Perspective

Published by Coventor at May 24, 2012
Categories
  • Coventor Blog
Tags
  • CoventorMP
  • TCAD

MEMS integration means different things to different audiences. To pioneers in the MEMS industry, integration may imply a monolithic fabrication process, in which the MEMS and accompanying CMOS electronics are fabricated on the same die. As suppliers of MEMS design automation software to the MEMS industry, Coventor sees integration more broadly as the work of combining MEMS with CMOS electronics, whether in a monolithic process, as separate die in the same package, or even in separate packages. And integration encompasses packaging effects on the MEMS as well. The electronics are analog/mixed-signal (A/MS) circuits that provide electrical input to the MEMS and perform A/D conversion on its output. Such circuits are designed and simulated at a high level of abstraction with MATLAB and Simulink, and at lower levels of abstraction with EDA software such as the Cadence Virtuoso suite. MEMS designers, therefore, must deliver models of their designs that are compatible with the tools of choice for electronics design. Coventor has been focusing on addressing this integration challenge for a number of years.

Of course, integration can be a matter of perspective: there are even higher levels of MEMS integration if you view things from a system company’s point of view. To put it simply, one supplier’s system is another’s component.  Qualcomm, for example, views the integration challenge from a different perspective. At the recent M2M Forum, Len Sheynblat, VP of Technology at Qualcomm, spoke about the challenges of integrating sensors into mobile handsets. Today’s smart phones have as many as 14 sensor types, many of them based on MEMS technology.  Sheynblat pointed out there are currently more than 18 sensor vendors offering more than 26 sensor product lines. With no standards for sensor I/O, even across products from the same vendor, the job of selecting and integrating sensors is unnecessarily time consuming. Even the data sheet specs for sensors of the same type are not standardized. The difficulty of sensor selection and integration flies in the face of increasing pressure on handset makers to bring new generations of handsets to market in ever-shorter cycles (now as short as six months). In fact, Sheynblat stated that with prices dropping for the sensors themselves, the integration costs comprise a growing proportion of the end product cost. If sensor integration is challenging for a company with Qualcomm’s technical and financial resources, one can easily imagine that other companies face similar, if not greater challenges.

While standardization is a critical aspect of MEMS integration that Sheynblat touched upon (And I will address that in a future post), it’s also clear that there needs to be a design methodology and environment conducive to MEMS integration.

System architects and ASIC designers who are responsible for designing a MEMS component (microcontroller plus ASIC plus multiple MEMS sensing elements) need to work at multiple levels of abstraction. At the highest level of abstraction, the algorithmic level, they’ll likely use MATLAB and Simulink to simulate the sensor(s) in combination with electronics and even digital signal processing. In order to simulate the whole system (again, a component to a handset maker), they’ll need a schematic symbol and underlying model for each MEMS device. At a lower level, the ASIC designers will use EDA tools like Cadence Virtuoso to create and verify a circuit design. They, too, will need a schematic symbol and underlying model to place in their circuit schematic. The design of the MEMS devices themselves will likely remain in the hands of specialists who we call MEMS designers.  Those specialists must hand over models of their MEMS devices that can be simulated in the MATLAB/Simulink and Cadence Virtuoso. Today, the handoff from MEMS designers to system architects and ASIC designers is almost entirely manual. Besides being labor intensive and a source of human errors, the manually generated MEMS models do not capture all of the physical behavior, leaving the possibility of unexpected interactions between the ASIC and the MEMS that can be difficult to diagnose further down the line.

The challenges of integrating ASICs and MEMS are what Coventor set out to address with the introduction of its MEMS+ product line. Today, MEMS+ enables MEMS designers to automatically generate models of their device that run in MATLAB, Simulink, or the Virtuoso environment. We are working toward a platform that provides automatic links to layout and the ASIC verification flow as well. The Coventor MEMS design automation platform has been adopted by a number of leading MEMS companies. As demand for MEMS-enabled systems grows, and MEMS component suppliers compete to offer ever more functionality in their components, we anticipate that most MEMS companies will be driven to adopt a MEMS design automation platform. At the MEMS component level and all higher levels of the sensor stack, the spoils will go to the companies that can most efficiently integrate multiple technologies.

Coventor’s vision for a MEMS design automation platform and MEMS Development Kits (MDKs) that complement ASIC design tools and methodology.

Share
Coventor
Coventor

Related posts

Figure 1: A virtual model of a GAA FET showing residual SiGe after the channel release step. Process engineers have to make a trade-off between silicon loss and residual SiGe.(b) Variation in residual SiGe as a function of the channel width and etch lateral ratio. The higher the channel width, the higher the lateral ratio needed to etch away all the SiGe. Channel widths are shown as delta values from the nominal value of 30 nm.

Figure 1: A virtual model of a GAA FET showing residual SiGe after the channel release step. Process engineers have to make a trade-off between silicon loss and residual SiGe.(b) Variation in residual SiGe as a function of the channel width and etch lateral ratio. The higher the channel width, the higher the lateral ratio needed to etch away all the SiGe. Channel widths are shown as delta values from the nominal value of 30 nm.

June 14, 2023

Improving Gate All Around (GAA) Transistor Performance using Virtual Process Window Exploration


Read more - Improving Gate All Around (GAA) Transistor Performance using Virtual Process Window Exploration
Figure 1 displays a single cell of a conventional DRAM that consists of 2 Word Lines (WLs), a Bit Line (BL) and 2 Storage Node Contacts (SNC) in Figure 1(a). There are 3 images in the figure. The Saddle Fin is produced during the WL etch step (prior to WL metal deposition) and is located below the cell wordline (Figure 1(b), right center inside a yellow dotted circle). The Saddle Fin structure can be seen in detail by making a vertical cut in the wordline direction (Fig.1(b), right). During device simulation, the Saddle Fin performance can be measured by virtually cropping a transistor and adding ports at the Gate, Source and Drain after an SNC Process (Fig.1(c), showing the gate, source and drain).
May 30, 2023

Improving DRAM Device Performance Through Saddle Fin Process Optimization


Read more - Improving DRAM Device Performance Through Saddle Fin Process Optimization
Figure 6 (left to right): Different profiles using pattern dependence for the antenna and sharp head shapes. a) Antenna shape with POR flow (b) Antenna profile with a gate CD of 26nm (c) Sharp head profile with a gate CD of 28nm (d) Sharp head profile with an etch.

Figure 6 (left to right): Different profiles using pattern dependence for the antenna and sharp head shapes. a) Antenna shape with POR flow (b) Antenna profile with a gate CD of 26nm (c) Sharp head profile with a gate CD of 28nm (d) Sharp head profile with an etch.

April 13, 2023

The Impact of Metal Gate Recess Profile on Transistor Resistance and Capacitance


Read more - The Impact of Metal Gate Recess Profile on Transistor Resistance and Capacitance
Figure 1a (left) displays the process of performing Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD), including Cu bombardment and filling of voids. Figure 1b (right) displays the process of performing Ion Beam Etch (IBE), including ion beam bombardment, mask shadowing and etch regions.

Fig 1a Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD); Fig 1b Ion Beam Etch (IBE)

March 22, 2023

A Deposition and Etch Technique to Lower Resistance of Semiconductor Metal Lines


Read more - A Deposition and Etch Technique to Lower Resistance of Semiconductor Metal Lines

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