• 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
  • When will we get 3D NAND Flash Memory???
Will there ever be a “standard” MEMS process?
September 16, 2013
A Trillion Sensors? Not so unbelievable
October 2, 2013

When will we get 3D NAND Flash Memory???

Published by David Fried at September 29, 2013
Categories
  • Coventor Blog
Tags
  • 3D NAND
  • Technology Reviews

It’s about time for 3D NAND Flash, the agreed-upon “future of memory technology” to stop being the future and start being the present. The concepts all make sense. DRAM scaling is getting more and more difficult, and the speed difference between DRAM and NVRAM (Flash) has closed to some extent. Flash technologies have been using finer geometries than other semiconductor technologies for several 2D nodes, and now they’re running out of steam. So, with these apparently obvious trends, and several massive corporations applying a decade of their research and development efforts to the problem, why are these technologies not in the mainstream yet?

Because 3D is difficult. Really, really difficult.

We’ve been hearing about these technologies for a while. It seemed Toshiba was getting pretty close with BiCS (Bit Cost Scalable), and then even closer with Pipe-BiCS, a denser version of the technology that was potentially easier to fabricate. Samsung joined the discussion with TCAT (Terabit Cell Array Transistor), which seemed to have retention advantages. Samsung recently announced shipping some samples of their V-NAND). At IEDM 2011 and 2012, SK Hynix showed their DC-SF (Dual Control-gate, Surround Floating-gate), and seemed closer than ever to production. Other research institutions and manufacturers have produced similar announcements and publications.

These technologies all fundamentally rely on the concept of building up a multi-layer stack, and then etching small holes all the way through that stack. Thin films have been done for generations, and deep holes have too (trench and stacked-capacitor DRAM). But this combination of stacks 16, 32 or 64 layers high and holes with super-high aspect ratios is incredibly challenging to semiconductor equipment manufacturers and etch process engineers. The challenges continue. Since each of those layers will serve as a control gate along the vertical bitline, there’s a significant amount of process conducted IN THAT DEEP HOLE. Now, this is where the technology goes off the deep-end. In DRAM, the processes to form the capacitor and fill the trenches are complex, but they pale in comparison with what is done in these holes. Multiple etches, oxidations, film depositions, recesses and strips all need to be carefully controlled inside a tiny deep hole. The number of experimental wafers that could be wasted on this module alone boggles my mind. If this wasn’t enough, there’s a crazy stair-case etch process to gain access to the control gates, and then an MOL (Middle-of-Line) that requires contacts to be formed at many different heights. Without significant advances in process design methodologies, such as virtual fabrication, the development of these integrated technologies will continue to be time consuming and experimentally expensive.

An additional aspect that might be at the heart of the delay in 3D NAND Flash is defectivity. The semiconductor industry has decades of experience dealing with defects in fabrication. In order to provide cost-competitive yield in a new generation, fabrication tools are held to the requirement of releasing half the defects at half the defect size relative to the prior generation. New tools with new filters with new cleaning procedures emerge every generation to manage this. But 3D structures put an additional spin on this problem. Imagine this: if a 100ft meteor (defect) strikes a dense residential area of ranch-style homes (2D), the damage is limited to one or two homes. However, if that same meteor strikes an area of densely packed multi-floor apartment buildings (3D), far more people end up displaced. The impact of a defect landing on a wafer is much more dramatic in 3D in terms of “bits killed”. Also, these complex multi-layer-stack integrated memory process flows result in elaborate defect-evolutions. Depending on when in the process a defect lands on the wafer, the results can be dramatically different. Understanding how these defects evolve through the process, isolating them, localizing them and accounting for them in terms of redundancy and yield optimization will unlock the keys to volume manufacturing.

A new class of automation tools that enable early analysis and modeling capabilities, such as Coventor’s SEMulator3D, are emerging to provide the accuracy and efficiency required to significantly reduce the time and costs of the traditional approach for semiconductor technology development. IBM recently published a paper at SISPAD 2013 detailing use of this virtual fabrication methodology to successfully accelerate the production ramp for its 22nm SOI process. The same principles are now being applied to NAND Flash process development. Without these tools, it could be another year or two before we get to use 3D NAND Flash and billions of dollars in additional technology development costs.

Share
David Fried
David Fried
Dr. David M. Fried, is Vice President of Computational Products at Coventor, a Lam Research company, where he is responsible for the company’s strategic direction and implementation of its SEMulator3D virtual fabrication 3D process modeling solution. He leads the execution of technology strategy for technology platforms, partnerships, and external relationships. His expertise touches upon such areas as Silicon-on-Insulator (SOI), FinFETs, memory scaling, strained silicon, and process variability. Fried is a well-respected technologist in the semiconductor industry, with 56 patents to his credit and notable 14-year career with IBM, where he was involved in successive process generations from 65-nanometer and lower. His most recent position was 22nm Chief Technologist for IBM’s Systems and Technology Group. He has Masters and Doctoral degrees in Electrical Engineering from Cornell University.

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