• 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
  • Using a Virtual DOE to Predict Process Windows and Device Performance of Advanced FinFET Technology
Figure 2: 3D view of RF MEMS switch model, showing the deflection under residual stress [2]
Overcoming RF MEMS Switch Development Challenges
June 13, 2021
Advancing to the 3nm Node and Beyond: Technology, Challenges and Solutions
July 20, 2021

Using a Virtual DOE to Predict Process Windows and Device Performance of Advanced FinFET Technology

Published by QingPeng Wang at June 16, 2021
Categories
  • Coventor Blog
Tags
  • FinFET
  • Process Window Optimization
  • SEMulator3D
Figure 3: On/off-state current distribution at fin bottom (top figures: no residue; bottom figure: with residue).

Figure 3: On/off-state current distribution at fin bottom (top figures: no residue; bottom figure: with residue).

Introduction

With continuing FinFET device process scaling, micro loading control becomes increasingly important due to its significant impact on yield and device performance [1-2]. Micro-loading occurs when the local etch rate on a wafer is dependent upon existing feature sizes and local pattern density. Unintended features or profiles created by the etch process can negatively impact device yield and performance. As an example, dummy poly profiles resulting from poly corner etch residue can change  FinFET structure profiles, and directly impact FinFET gate length and electrical performance. The impact of poly corner residue on yield and device performance, including what residue size is acceptable, can be predicted in advance using SEMulator3D®. [3].

Poly Corner Residue Modeling and Process Window Checks for FinFET devices

Poly corner residue can create metal gate protrusions at the fin cross gate area.  These protrusions can be found at many different FinFET nodes, and poly corner residue is commonly formed during the poly etch process [4-7].

Figure 1: Fabricated 3D corner residue and its profile at different elevations.

Figure 1: Fabricated 3D corner residue and its profile at different elevations.

A 5 nm virtual process model using an SRAM111 structure was built in SEMulator3D to study poly etch residue behavior. In this simulated poly etch process, pattern dependence etch was used in SEMulator3D to simulate a poly residue profile. Figure 1 displays the computer-generated poly residue structure (left). The poly profiles at different elevations (fin top, middle and bottom) are shown on the right-hand side of Figure 1.

How large of a poly corner etch residue is acceptable before a structural hard failure occurs in this simulated device? We investigated this question by testing 100 combinations of residue widths and heights in a virtual DOE (design of experiments).  We measured the number of nets during virtual manufacturing, as a metric to understand the number of epitaxial to poly shorts (or failures) in the device. The number of nets will be less than 3 if the residue is too large and creates an epi to poly short. Fig. 2 displays a contour map containing the number of nets compared to the residue widths and heights. The green area displays proper (non-failing) device structures with 3 nets. Considering the potential manufacturing variability of both residue width and height (potentially 1.5 nm and 5 nm respectively), a “safe” residue window can be found on the left-hand side of the blue dotted line.

Figure 2: Contour map containing the number of nets compared to the residue width and height

Figure 2: Contour map containing the number of nets compared to the residue width and height

Impact of Poly Corner Residue on FinFET Device Performance

Using an acceptable poly residue (with no hard failures), we then simulated the device performance. The results indicated that a larger residue can actually benefit the on-state drive current, off-state leakage, subthreshold swing and DIBL. It can boost device performance with higher on-current (108%) and lower off-state leakage (50%), compared with an ideal structure that had no residue. To further understand the mechanism of this device performance boost, we investigated the on-state and the off-state current distribution at the fin bottom when a larger residue was present (See Figure 3).

During the on-state, the channel length becomes larger when the poly residue is present. The residue covers part of the access area between the source/drain and the gate. Series resistance consequently is smaller, leading to a larger drive current. During the off-state, most of the fin area between the source and the drain can be controlled by the gate. Consequently, the resistance between the source and drain is higher when a poly residue is present and provides lower off-state leakage.

Figure 3: On/off-state current distribution at fin bottom (top figures: no residue; bottom figure: with residue).

Figure 3: On/off-state current distribution at fin bottom (top figures: no residue; bottom figure: with residue).

Conclusion

In this paper, we used Coventor SEMulator3D to study process windows and the impact of poly corner etch residue on device performance in a 5 nm FinFET process. This study helped us gain a greater understanding of acceptable process windows and associated device performance at different poly residue dimensions. Our study demonstrated that instead of completely minimizing poly corner residue, poly residue size control can be implemented to gain device performance and concurrently maximize yield.

 

Interested in learning more?

Download the full whitepaper “The Effects of Poly Corner Etch Residue on Advanced FinFET Device Performance” to learn more.

Download Full Paper

 

References

  1. G. E. Moore, Electronics Magazine, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 114-117, Apr 1965.
  2. B. D. Gaynor et al, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 2738-2744, Aug. 2014.
  3. http://www.coventor.com/products/semulator3d
  4. TechInsights TSMC 12FFN FinFET teardown report.
  5. TechInsights TSMC 10FF FinFET teardown report.
  6. TechInsights SAMSUNG 10nm FinFET teardown report.
  7. TechInsights TSMC 7FF FinFET teardown report.
Share
QingPeng Wang
QingPeng Wang
QingPeng Wang, Ph.D. is a Senior Semiconductor Process & Integration (SPI) Engineer at Coventor, A Lam Research Company. Prior to his position at Coventor, QingPeng worked on FinFET FEOL process development and yield enhancement. as a process integration engineer at SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation). He currently assists customers in China with process development and applications engineering using Coventor's SEMulator3D product. QingPeng received a doctoral degree in microelectronics from Tokushima University and a 2nd doctoral degree in microelectronics from Dalian University of Technology. Dr. Wang has published more than 30 technical papers in the area of wide bandgap semiconductor fabrication, FinFET fabrication and semiconductor virtual fabrication.

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