Presentation on theme: "1 San Francisco July 14, 2010 ITRS - YE ITWG Conference in San Francisco (USA) July 14, 2009 L. Pfitzner,"— Presentation transcript:
1 San Francisco July 14, 2010 ITRS - YE ITWG Conference in San Francisco (USA) July 14, 2009 L. Pfitzner, firstname.lastname@example.org
2 San Francisco July 14, 2010 Scope of Yield Enhancement Aspects –Manufacturing of integrated semiconductor devices: numerous processing steps building the 3D structure of the chip (e.g. 9 Cu and low – k interconnect layers for 32 nm) –Yield: percentage of operating chips at the end of the manufacturing process Components –Determination and control of contamination –Inspection of structures and critical dimensions –Model to predict and calculate yield based on historic contamination levels (particulate and metals) and defects (failures) –Determination of kill ratios: Correlation between defects and yield 45 nm high-k metal gate transistor. Presented by Mark Bohr (Intel) 02/2009 45 nm ramp production was the fastest Presented by Mark Bohr (Intel) 02/2009 Gordon Moore: There is no fundamental obstacle to achieving device yields of 100%. (Electronics, 38 (8), 1965)
3 San Francisco July 14, 2010 Objectives of Yield Enhancement collect defect data –tools for inspection and root cause analysis –automated defect classification and filtering –inspection strategy yield management –software –objective: to correlate data and find excursions –predict yield defect data excursions –define specs –procedure for clarification process module 1 process module 2 process module k wafer 1 2 k manufacturing inspection and collection of data review, characterization, metrology defect densities defect classiffication
4 San Francisco July 14, 2010 Defects and Failure Mechanisms processes: litho, etch thin film implantation, planarization, cleaning,… faults and problems: defects as e.g. particles, flatness, layer properties, patterns, dimensions challenges –yield and defect map in 2 D –root cause analysis requires 3 D –model, predict, and forecast yield YM&DB –requires fast and non- destructive inspection (defect density) and metrology (root cause analysis) for 2D and 3D structures DDC –requires preventive defect and contamination control WECC n-wellp-well n Via p crack short open contamination p+p+ particle COP layer thickness Metal 1 Metal 2 overlay p Interconnects n+n+ particle ESD Damage Si crystal: stacking faults, contamination, stress, COP (crystal originating particles), epi defects interfaces: roughness, state density, charges (YM&DB: defect budget and yield modelling - DDC:
5 San Francisco July 14, 2010 Organization of the Chapter 2010 Chair: Lothar Pfitzner (Fraunhofer IISB) Co-Chair: Dilip Patel (ISMI) Difficult Challenges Table YE 2 Technology Requirements and Potential Solutions -Yield Learning (YL – not active in 2010) Chair: N.N.; Contributors to be defined by Samsung, AMAT -Yield Model and Defect Budget (YMDB – not active in 2010) Chair: Sumio Kuwabara (Renesas) - Japan Table YE 3, (2 deleted tables – defect budgets) -Defect Detection and Characterization (DDC) Chair: N.N. (A. Nutsch and D. Patel) – Europe and US Table YE 4, YE 5, YE 6 -Wafer Environment Contamination Control (WECC) Chair: Kevin Pate (Intel) – USA, Andreas Neuber (AMAT) - Europe Table YE 7
6 San Francisco July 14, 2010 2010 YE ITWG Contributors Europe Lothar Pfitzner ( chair, Fraunhofer IISB ) Andreas Neuber (c-chair, AMAT ) Dieter Rathei ( DDC, DR Yield ) Francois Finck ( DDC, ST ) Barry Kennedy ( DDC, Intel ) Andreas Nutsch ( DDC, Fraunhofer IISB ) Ines Thurner ( DDC, Smart Industry Partners ) Jan Cavelaars ( DDC, NXP ) Mathias Haeuser (DDC, Infineon) Delphine Gerin ( WECC, ST Crolles ) Astrid Gettel ( WECC, GLOBALFOUNDRIES ) Christoph Hocke ( WECC, Infineon Technologies ) Michael Otto ( WECC, Fraunhofer IISB ) Matthias Pfutterer ( WECC, M+W Group ) Hubert Winzig ( WECC, Infineon ) Francesca Illuzzi ( WECC, Numonyx ) Hans Jansen ( WECC, ASML ) Jost Kames ( WECC, artemis control AG ) Arnaud Favre ( WECC, Adixen ) Japan Sumio Kuwabara ( YMDB, Renesas ) Hiroshi Nagaishi ( DDC, Renesas ) Masashi Hamanaka ( DDC, Panasonic ) Takahiro Tsuchiya ( DDC, Fujitsu Semiconductor ) Yoshitaka Tatsumoto ( DDC, Lasertec ) Masahiko Ikeno ( DDC, Hitachi High-Technologies ) Mutsuhiro Amari ( WECC, Entegris ) Takashi Futatsuki ( WECC, Organo ) Teruyuki Hayashi ( WECC, TEL ) Katsunobu Kitami ( WECC, Kurita ) Kaoru Kondoh ( WECC, Rion ) Yasuhiko Matsumoto ( WECC, Rohm ) Fumio Mizuno ( WECC, MEISEI University ) Kazuo Nishihagi ( WECC, HORIBA ) Koichiro Saga ( WECC, SONY ) Yoshimi Shiramizu ( co-chair, Renesas ) Isamu Sugiyama ( WECC, NOMURA ) Ken Tsugane ( WECC, HITACHI ) Hidehiro Masuko ( WECC, ShinEtsu ) United States Dilip Patel ( co-chair, ISMI ) Barry Gotlinsky ( WECC, Pall ) Biswanath Roy ( WECC, Pall ) Bob Latimer ( WECC, Hach ) Chris Muller ( WECC, Purafil, Inc. ) Dan Fuchs ( WECC, BOCE ) Dan Wilcox ( WECC, Replipoint Technologies ) David Blackford ( WECC, Fluid Measurement Technologies ) David Roberts ( WECC, Nantero ) Drew Sinha ( WECC, Siltronic ) Dwight Beal ( WECC, PMS ) James McAndrew ( WECC, Air Liquide ) Jeff Chapman ( WECC, IBM ) Jeff Hanson ( WECC, Texas Instruments ) John DeGenova ( WECC, Texas Instruments ) John Kurowski ( WECC, IBM ) Keith Kerwin ( WECC, TI ) Kevin Pate ( co-chair, Intel ) Larry Rabellino ( WECC, SAES ) Marc Camenzind ( WECC, Balazs-AirLiquide ) Rich Riley ( WECC, Intel ) Rick Godec ( WECC, Ionics Instruments ) Sarah Schoen ( WECC, Balazs-AirLiquide ) Scott Anderson ( WECC, Balazs-AirLiquide ) Slava Libman ( WECC, M+W Group ) Suhas Ketkar ( WECC, APCI ) Terry Stange ( WECC, Hach Ultra Analytics ) Tony Schleisman ( WECC, Air Liquide ) Val Stradz ( WECC, Intel ) Wai-Ming Choi ( WECC, Entegris ) William Moore ( WECC, IBM ) Milton Goldwin ( DDC, ISMI ) Taiwan Victor Liang (, TSMC ) YCHuang Huang (, TSMC ) Ray Yang (, UMC ) Mao-Hsiang Yen (, Winbond ) Cherng Guo (, MXIX ) Korea (not confirmed) Sang Kyun Park ( Magna Chip ) Jinsung Kim ( Samsung ) Lim Jaewoong ( Samsung ) Incheol Baek ( Dongbu HiTek ) Thank you very much! Malaysia Guillaume Gallet ( WECC, Camfil)
7 San Francisco July 14, 2010 2010 Key Challenges The Yield Enhancement community is challenged by the following topics: Near Term (>16 nm) –Detection and identification of Small Yield Limiting Defects from Nuisance - Detection of multiple killer defects and their simultaneous differentiation at high capture rates, low cost of ownership and high throughput. It is a challenge to find small but yield relevant defects under a vast amount of nuisance and false defects. –Non-Visual Defects and Process Variations – Increasing yield loss due to non-visual defects and process variations requires new approaches in methodologies, diagnostics and control. This includes the correlation of systematic yield loss and layout attributes. The irregularity of features in logic areas makes them very sensitive to systematic yield loss mechanisms such as patterning process variations across the lithographic process window. –3D Inspection – For inspection tools the capability to inspect high aspect ratios but also to detect non-visuals such as voids, embedded defects, and sub-surface defects is crucial. The need for high-speed and cost-effective 3D inspection tools becomes crucial as the importance of 3D defect types increases. –Process Stability vs. Absolute Contamination Level – Including the Correlation to Yield Test structures, methods and data are needed for correlating defects caused by wafer environment and handling with yield. This requires determination of control limits for gases, chemicals, air, precursors, ultrapure water and substrate surface cleanliness.
8 San Francisco July 14, 2010 2010 Key Challenges The Yield Enhancement community is challenged by the following topics: Long Term (<16 nm) –Next Generation Inspection - As bright field detection in the far-field loses its ability to discriminate defects of interest, it has become necessary to explore new alternative technologies that can meet inspection requirements beyond 16 nm node. Several techniques should be given consideration as potential candidates for inspection: high speed scanning probe microscopy, near-field scanning optical microscopy, interferometry, scanning capacitance microscopy and e-beam. This pathfinding exercise needs to assess each techniques ultimate resolution, throughput and potential interactions with samples (contamination, or degree of mechanical damage) as key success criteria. –Inline Defect Characterization and Analysis – Alternatives to Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy systems are required for high throughput in-line characterization and analysis for defects smaller than feature sizes. The data volume to be analyzed is drastically increasing, therefore demanding for new methods for data interpretation and to ensure quality. –Development of model-based design-manufacturing interface Due to Optical Proximity Correction (OPC) and the high complexity of integration, the models must comprehend greater parametric sensitivities, ultra-thin film integrity, impact of circuit design, greater transistor packing, etc.
9 San Francisco July 14, 2010 Introduction of 450 mm substrates Impacted AreasFocus Items Processesuniformity of processes, contamination, thermal effects/uniformity, (cleaning, polishing, deposition, etch, anneal,..) Lithographyincrease of area by 2.25 times requires high performance – high speed litho Handlingdeformation ( stress), transport issues, wafer translation (large distances, acceleration and settling times increase, vertical drift along the wafer) Metrologystages and handling, mapping capabilities, increase of area by 2.25 times requires high performance – high speed metrology (inspection), dimensional change due to thermal expansion coefficient, … Data Managementamount of data, data quality, … Impact of 450 mm Wafer Diameter on Equipment and Metrology Diameter300 mm450 mm Thickness775 µm925 µm Area706 cm²1589 cm²
10 San Francisco July 14, 2010 2010 – 450 mm Discussion (key challenge 2009) Introduction of 450 mm substrates - The introduction of 450 mm wafers is expected to impact the defect detection and characterization but as well defect budgets and yield models due to the large surface of the substrate. The introduction of 450 mm wafers requires a new generation of inspection tools. –The cost of ownership is impacted by throughput and tool cost. It will be difficult to maintain the throughput of inspection tools at the 450 mm wafer size. Therefore, the tool costs are crucial. –450 mm handling for inspection has the risk of large substrate flexibility but also coordinate accuracy required for defect review. –Due the large surface a huge amount of inspection data will be obtained. Improvement of data quality and reduction of the amount of data will be important. Defect budgets and yield models are impacted by the unknown defect densities on the large substrates.
11 San Francisco July 14, 2010 Update 2010 Overall –confirmation of key challenges –deleted 450 mm as a new challenge –ISMI to organize a new defect budget survey DDC –adjust tables to ORCT input –update colours and numbers DB & YL –outline for defect budget survey presented –discuss non–visible defects –Tables were deleted (not up to date)
12 San Francisco July 14, 2010 Update 2010 WECC: Focus items (Ultrapure Water, Chemicals, Gas, Airborne/Surface Molecular Contamination and Cleanroom) –Particles: Measurement, composition, critical size, identify yield correlation, deposition models –Organics: Measurement, speciation, identify yield correlation, deposition models –Ionic, metallic and other molecular contamination: Deposition risk assessment methodology and model –Gases and CVD/ALD precursor contamination control requirements: measurement, control and impact assessment –Airborne and Surface Molecular Contamination: integrated control concept (carrier and mini-environment), metrology requirements, deposition models and impact assessments
13 San Francisco July 14, 2010 Activities 2010 Setup of ITRS Forums in operation and used for communication Defect Budget Survey (ongoing) –outline for defect budget survey (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F9ZFTTB ) –Contributors defined in Japan, Europe, and US
14 San Francisco July 14, 2010 YE involvement of ANNA Input generation by ANNA (European Integrated Activity of Excellence and Networking for Nano and Micro- Electronics Analysis) –ANNA integrates analytical infrastructures (www.anna-i3.org)www.anna-i3.org virtual distributed joint laboratory (8 laboratories accredited according ISO 17025) development of analytical techniques for semiconductor manufacturing driven by quality requirements such as comparability of techniques and methods but also by the challenge of pushing metrology and analytical techniques to the limits involvement of industry, research organisations and academia –Inputs for ITRS: Contributions for Standardization (ISO and DIN) Metrology Challenges Input to be delivered by IDM and wafer manufacturers
15 San Francisco July 14, 2010 ANNA Contributions for Standardization The production of relevant reference material and standards. –References for trace analysis were produced and characterized –Ultra-short pulsed laser deposition (PLD) of Ni was used in reference free SR-TXRF analysis –B, As, Si implanted samples were produced at depths and concentrations for ultra shallow junctions –To investigate nanocrystals HfO 2 and HfSiO 2 films were made for measurements of thickness and stoichiometry –For strain in device processing, epitaxial wafers were used to produce standard samples for CBED analysis –Standard samples for nanocrystals characterization were developed
16 San Francisco July 14, 2010 ANNA Contributions for Standardization The production of relevant reference material and standards. –References for trace analysis were produced and characterized. Those references were spin coated wafers, droplets on wafers and organic contaminated Si strips and wafers –Ultra-short pulsed laser deposition (PLD) of Ni (1 inch squared area on a 8 wafer) was used in reference free SR-TXRF analysis. Initial characterizations indicated that the 10 12 cm-² level for Ni could be reached. –B, As, Si implanted samples were produced at depths and concentrations such that ultra shallow junctions could be investigated. –To investigate nanocrystals HfO 2 and HfSiO 2 films were made and shown to be useful for measurements of thickness and stoichiometry –To investigate strain in device processing, epitaxial wafers were used. A method was developed which can be used to produce standard samples for CBED analysis. Also low energy FIB gave reproducible results. –Standard samples were not available for nanocrystals characterization so were developed by the project. Most of the sample preparations developed (including deposition of silicon rich oxide, electrochemical etching, Langmuir-Blodgett patterning and ion implantation) can be used to create standard samples.
17 San Francisco July 14, 2010 ANNA – YE/Metrology Challenges ANNA prepares and/or encourages standards for metrology –Highly sensitive detection of inorganic contamination from Li to U. –Comprehension of organic contamination of wafer surfaces –Metrology for depth distribution of Ultra Shallow Junctions –Nanofilms Characterization –Crystal defects and strain in device processing –Nanocrystal Characterization:
18 San Francisco July 14, 2010 ANNA – YE/Metrology Challenges ANNA prepares and/or encourages standards for metrology –Highly sensitive detection of inorganic contamination from Li to U: A suitable standard for trace analysis (e.g. TXRF is missing). A TXRF standard would require a huge effort of calculations and modeling but would be useful from a users perspective. The different commercial equipment suppliers use different standards and these generate significant discrepancies in metal measurements. –Comprehension of organic contamination of wafer surfaces: A long term stable standard is still missing (stability tests showed a degradation of quantity after 10 days and in a vacuum) –Ultra Shallow Junctions: It proved difficult to obtain ultra low implants in silicon. Also new material implants like Ge, III-V etc were unavailable. Delta doped material to test the depth distribution of various techniques would be useful. Also 2D and 3D structures of interest should be manufactured to try ADF-STEM characterization. –Nanofilms Characterization: Provision of standards was problematic. The availability of a set of HfO 2 samples with a wider range of thicknesses or HfSiO 2 samples with a wider range of Hf:Si ratios could be developed for further research. –Crystal defects and strain in device processing: A procedure had to be set up for CBED sample preparation as one wasn't available. Wafer samples with predefined strain values would be useful for future research. –Nanocrystal Characterization: Neither samples nor procedures to create nanocrystal samples that can serve as standard samples were available at the start of the project. The members defined their own sample preparation parameters that best suit for testing the desired characterization techniques.
19 San Francisco July 14, 2010 ITRS-SEMI Alignment on Ultrapure Water Spec UPW ITRS group identified limitations of use of ITRS tables for design UPW facilities – ITRS enables future technologies Collaboration between UPW ITRS group and SEMI resulted in development of new UPW quality guide (SEMI F063) –F063 is a guide providing advanced Semiconductor Fabs with information required for setting internal specifications –F063 is based on ITRS risk assessment –F063 considers UPW treatment technology and metrology feasibility –F063 takes into account economical viability –The agreement is that F063 be updated every two year, maintaining ITRS pace –The SEMI TF is attempting to align the F063 with ASTM standard
20 San Francisco July 14, 2010 Summary July 2010 Development / Improvement of the Yield Enhancement Chapter –Addition of new key challenges integrated AMC concept (together with Factory Integration), next generation inspection –ISMI / SEMATECH outlined a defect budget survey: request to get support from IDMs (Asia, US, Europe) and TWG as FEP, Interconnect, Litho,…. presentation survey outline available (contact: Dilip.Patel@ismi.sematech.org)Dilip.Patel@ismi.sematech.org –European IDMs committed to work on IDM contribution to the survey and chairing DDC - Defect Detection and Characterization
21 San Francisco July 14, 2010 Outlook Development/ Improvement of the Yield Enhancement chapter –Reflection of current status and future requirements needs subsequent adjustment of outline and content of the chapter –Request to IDMs, ESIA, JEITA, KSIA, SIA, TSIA, ISMI, academia contributing to ITRS: assure that sufficient contributors and resources are available surveys required for future updates e.g. DB&YM