4 december 2002, itrs 2002 update conference metrology roadmap 2002 update europeulrich mantz...
TRANSCRIPT
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Metrology RoadmapMetrology Roadmap2002 Update2002 Update
EuropeEurope Ulrich Mantz (Infineon)Ulrich Mantz (Infineon)Alec Reader (Philips Analytical)Alec Reader (Philips Analytical)Mauro Vasconi (ST)Mauro Vasconi (ST)
JapanJapan Masahiko Ikeno (Mitsubishi)Masahiko Ikeno (Mitsubishi)Fumio Mizuno (Meisei University)Fumio Mizuno (Meisei University)Toshihiko Osada (Fujitsu)Toshihiko Osada (Fujitsu)Akira Okamoto (SONY)Akira Okamoto (SONY)Yuichiro Yamazaki (Toshiba)Yuichiro Yamazaki (Toshiba)
KoreaKorea DH Cho (Samsung)DH Cho (Samsung)
Taiwan Taiwan Henry Ma (EPISIL)Henry Ma (EPISIL)
USUS Steve Knight (NIST)Steve Knight (NIST)Alain Diebold (Int. SEMATECH)Alain Diebold (Int. SEMATECH)
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Metrology RoadmapMetrology Roadmap2002 Update2002 Update
USUS John AllgairJohn Allgair MotorolaMotorolaAlain Diebold Alain Diebold Int. SEMATECHInt. SEMATECHDrew EvanDrew Evan CEACEADavid Joy David Joy Univ. of TennUniv. of Tenn
Steve Knight Steve Knight NISTNISTKevin MonahanKevin Monahan KLA-TencorKLA-TencorNoel Poduje ADENoel Poduje ADEHeath PoisHeath Pois ThermawaveThermawaveBhanwar Singh Bhanwar Singh AMDAMDAndras Vladar NISTAndras Vladar NIST
SpeakersSpeakersMichael GosteinMichael Gostein Philips AnalyticalPhilips AnalyticalPY HungPY HungInt. SEMATECHInt. SEMATECHTom KellyTom Kelly AmigoAmigoHeath Pois Heath Pois ThermawaveThermawaveBenzi Sender Benzi Sender Applied MaterialsApplied MaterialsProf. Fred TerryProf. Fred Terry Univ. of MichiganUniv. of Michigan
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
AGENDAAGENDA
• 2002 ITRS Changes
• Lithography Metrology
• FEP Metrology
• Interconnect Metrology
• Materials Characterization
• Key Challenges
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
2002 ITRS Changes2002 ITRS ChangesTechnology Node 130 nm 90nm 65 nm 45 nm 32 nm 22 nm
MPU / ASIC ½ Pitch (nm) 150 90 65 45 32 22MPU Printed Gate Length (nm) 90 53 35 25 18 13MPU Physical Gate Length (nm) 65 37 25 18 13 9
Lithography MetrologyPrinted Gate CD Control (nm)Allowed Litho Variance = 2/3 Total Variance of physical gate length
5.3 3 2 1.5 1.1 0.7
Wafer CD Tool 3 Precision P/T=0.2 for Printed and Physical Isolated Lines
1.1 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
Line Edge Roughness (nm) 4.5 2.7 1.8 1.3 0.9 0.65
Precision for LER 0.9 0.54 0.36 0.26 0.18 0.13
Interconnect Metrology
Barrier layer thick (nm) process range (±3 ) Precision 1 (nm)
1320%0.04
1020%0.03
720%0.02
520%0.016
420%0.013
Void Size for 1% Voiding in Cu Lines 87 52 37 26 18 12
Detection of Killer Pores at (nm) size 6.5 4.5 3.25 2.25 1.6 1.1
Orange = production done w/out meeting ITRS precision specification
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
2001 2002 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016
Leading ProductionTechnology Node = DRAM ½ Pitch
130 nm 115 nm 90nm 65 nm 45 nm 32 nm 22 nm
MPU / ASIC ½ Pitch (nm) 150 130 90 65 45 32 22
MPU Printed Gate Length (nm) 90 75 53 35 25 18 13
MPU Physical Gate Length (nm) 65 53 37 25 18 13 9
Beta Site 90 nm Node
R&D 65 nm Node
Early R&D 45 nm Node
Metrology TimelineMetrology Timeline
Leading Edge ToolSpecifications set
2003
45 nm Node Metrology R&D Materials available
10 nm structures difficult to obtain
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Litho Process part of total CD budgetLitho Process part of total CD budget• Litho Process range - Litho 2/3 Etch 1/3 in 2002
may change in 2003• Use Process Range for Physical (Etched) Gate for both Printed and
Etched Gate• Variances add as sum of squares • Etched Gate
– 90 nm node Process range for 37 nm physical i.e., etched gate, of 3.7 nm 3 (i.e. plus or minus 10%)
– 2/3 of (3.7 nm)2 = 9.12 nm which gives 3 nm 3 for Litho Process Range
– 3 Precision for P/T of 20% is 0.2 x 3 nm = 0.6 nm• Make Precision of Printed gate match that of Etched Gate and Result
is that Printed Gate now requires better precision
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
CD Potential SolutionsCD Potential Solutions2001 2002 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016
Leading ProductionTechnology Node = DRAM ½ Pitch
130 nm 115 nm 90nm 65 nm 45 nm 32 nm 22 nm Driver
MPU / ASIC ½ Pitch (nm) 150 130 90 65 45 32 22
MPU Printed Gate Length (nm) 90 75 53 35 25 18 13
MPU Physical Gate Length (nm) 65 53 37 25 18 13 9
CD-SEM
High Voltage CD-SEM
Scatterometry
CD-AFM
Point Projection Microscopee - holography
R&D RequiredMeets ITRS Precision
w/o tool matching
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
3D CD Metrology 3D CD Metrology SEM – Scatterometry – CD-AFMSEM – Scatterometry – CD-AFM
Commercially availableR&D
Software comparison of top
down line scan of edge to golden image
Tilt Beam SEM
Scatterometry
CD-AFM
-480 -400 -320 -240 -160 -80 0 80 1600
100
200
300
400
500
600
5
-480 -400 -320 -240 -160 -80 0 80 1600
100
200
300
400
500
600
5
Software to convert top down image to
3D image
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Line Edge Roughness RequirementsLine Edge Roughness RequirementsNow: LWR In or Off-lineNow: LWR In or Off-line
Thanks to ITRS Litho TWG - Harry Levinson / Mauro Vasconi
-8.0
-7.5
-7.0
-6.5
-6.0
-5.5
-5.0
-1.0 -0.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5Log Active Width
LER = 10 nmLER = 3 nm
IL @
500
A/
m Id
Line Width RoughnessCorrelated to
Leakage Current Increase
Patterson, et. al., SPIE 2001
AVE CD = 150 nm
Technology Node 130 nm 90nm 65 nm 45 nm 32 nm 22 nmPrinted Gate CD Control (nm)Allowed Litho Variance = 2/3 Total Variance of physical gate length
5.3 3 2 1.5 1.1 0.7
Wafer CD Tool 3 Precision P/T=0.2 for Printed and Physical Isolated Lines
1.1 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
Line Edge Roughness (nm) 4.5 2.7 1.8 1.3 0.9 0.65
Precision for LER 0.9 0.54 0.36 0.26 0.18 0.13
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
FEP : High FEP : High Metrology Metrology
0.00E + 00
1.00E -07
2.00E -07
3.00E -07
4.00E -07
5.00E -07
6.00E -07
7.00E -07
8.00E -07
9.00E -07
1.00E -06
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
V g (V )
C (
F/c
m^
2)
Dit= 0
Dit= 1e10
Dit= 1e11
Dit= 1e12
Dit= 1e13
tox = 3nm ,Ns ub= 1e17,Npoly = 1e20
“Out of the Furnace” High Dit
= Error in EOT
polarizeranalyzermonochromator
E
s
p
Polarizationbefore sample
s
p
E(t)
Polarizationafter sample
p
s
p
s
Si
polarizeranalyzermonochromator
E
s
p
Polarizationbefore sample
s
p
E(t)
Polarizationafter sample
p
s
p
s
Si
Light source:(Xe, D2, lasers)
High near UV light absorption
Makes thin interfacial layer difficult to measure
Technology Node 130 nm 90nm 65 nm 45 nm 32 nm 22 nm DriverFront End Processes MetrologyLogic Dielectric Thick Precision 3 (nm) 0.005 0.004 0.0024 0.0024 0.0016 0.0016 MPU
Metrology for Ultra-Shallow Junctions at Channel Xj (nm)
26 14.8 10 7.2 5.2 3.6 MPU
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Extra reflection from SOI Wafers Impacts Extra reflection from SOI Wafers Impacts Optical Measurements and Light ScatteringOptical Measurements and Light Scattering
SOI WaferSOI Wafer
Si WaferSi Wafer
Gate Dielectric Gate Dielectric on Si Waferon Si Wafer
Gate Dielectric Gate Dielectric on SOI Waferon SOI Wafer
SOI WaferSOI WaferSOI WaferSOI Wafer
Si WaferSi WaferSi WaferSi Wafer
Gate Dielectric Gate Dielectric on Si Waferon Si Wafer
Gate Dielectric Gate Dielectric on Si Waferon Si Wafer
Gate Dielectric Gate Dielectric on SOI Waferon SOI Wafer
Gate Dielectric Gate Dielectric on SOI Waferon SOI Wafer
Quantum confinement for sub 20 nm siliconNeed SOI Optical Constants
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Metrology & New StructuresMetrology & New Structures
DEVICE RESONANT TUNNELING
DIODE – FET
SINGLE ELECTRON TRANSISTOR
RAPID SINGLE QUANTUM FLUX
LOGIC
QUANTUM CELLULAR AUTOMATA
NANOTUBE DEVICES
MOLECULAR DEVICES
TYPES 3-terminal 3-terminal
Josephson Junction
+inductance loop
-Electronic QCA
-Magnetic QCA FET
2-terminal and 3-terminal
S T O R A G E M E C H A N I S M
B A S E L I N E 2 0 0 2 T E C H N O L O G I E S
M A G N E T I C R A M P H A S E C H A N G E
M E M O R Y N A N O F L O A T I N G
G A T E M E M O R Y
S I N G L E / F E W E L E C T R O N M E M O R I E S
M O L E C U L A R M E M O R I E S
D E V I C E T Y P E S D R A M N O R F L A S H P S E U D O -
S P I N - V A L V E
M A G N E T I C T U N N E L
J U N C T I O N O U M
- E N G I N E E R E D
T U N N E L B A R R I E R - N A N O C R Y S T A L
S E T
- B I S T A B L E S W I T C H
- M O L E C U L A R N E M S
- S P I N B A S E D M O L E C U L A R
D E V I C E S
W O R D B I T
W R n + n + m e m o r y n o d e E n g i n e e r e d b a r r i e r
S i
G a t e
Logic
Memory
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Gaps in Interconnect Metrology
• VOID Detection in Copper lines
now based on ½ via diameter
• Killer Pore Detection in Low
• Barrier / Seed Cu on sidewalls
• Control of each new Low
Technology Node 130 nm 90nm 65 nm 45 nm 32 nm 22 nm
Interconnect Metrology
Barrier layer thick (nm) process range (±3 ) Precision 1 (nm)
1320%0.04
1020%0.03
720%0.02
520%0.016
420%0.013
Void Size for 1% Voiding in Cu Lines 87 52 37 26 18 12
Detection of Killer Pores at (nm) size 6.5 4.5 3.25 2.25 1.6 1.1
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
High Frequency Measurement of High Frequency Measurement of
• NIST’s characterization of for low have shown that is stable
• Industry sees less need for high frequency measurement of for low
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Interconnect Clarification for Void Interconnect Clarification for Void Detection in Copper LinesDetection in Copper Lines
• Detection of post deposition and anneal process voids at or exceeding listed size (nm) when these voids constitute 1 % or more of total metal level conductor volume of copper line and 5% of vias. [B]
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Barrier –Seed Cu Barrier –Seed Cu Process ToleranceProcess Tolerance
• Flat – horizontal film measurement used to control sidewall thickness
• Lower limit is thinnest film that acts as barrier
• Upper limit is thickest film allowed for resistivity concerns
• Very thin barriers may be digital i.e. there or not
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Materials CharacterizationMaterials CharacterizationNeed New Microscopy Methods Need New Microscopy Methods
LEAP is one exampleLEAP is one example
High Voltage
Needle-Shaped Specimen
Imag
e S
creen
LEAPlocal electrode atom probe
Atom by atom 3D profile
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Key Metrology Challenges Key Metrology Challenges • Breakthrough microscopy for CD measurement
• Measurement capability for control of interface between high and substrate & gate electrode
• Low killer pore detection and copper void control
• Atom by Atom microscopy for materials characterization
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Backup
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
2001 Metrology Requirements Summary2001 Metrology Requirements Summary
Technology Node 130 nm 90nm 65 nm 45 nm 32 nm 22 nm DriverLithography MetrologyWafer Gate CD nm post-etch contol 6.5 3.7 2.5 1.8 1.3 0.9 MPU
Wafer CD Tool 3s Precision P/T=0.2 Isolated Lines
1.3 0.75 0.5 0.36 0.26 0.18 MPU
Line Edge Roughness (nm) 4.5 2.7 1.8 1.3 0.9 0.65 MPU
Precision for LER 0.9 0.54 0.36 0.26 0.18 0.13Overlay Control (nm) (mean +3s ) 45 31 26 18 13 9 MPU
Overlay Metrology Precision (nm) P/T=0.1 4.5 3.1 2.6 1.8 1.3 0.9 MPU
Front End Processes Metrology
Logic Dielectric Thick Precision 3 (nm)0.005 0.004 0.0024 0.0024 0.0016 0.0016
MPU
Metrology for Ultra-Shallow Junctions at Channel Xj (nm)
26 14.8 10 7.2 5.2 3.6 MPU
Interconnect Metrology
Barrier layer thick (nm) process range (±3 ) Precision 1 (nm)
1320%0.04
1020%0.03
720%0.02
520%0.016
420%0.013
MPU
Void Size for 1% Voiding in Cu Lines 32.5 22.5 16.25 11.25 8 5.5 MPU
Detection of Killer Pores at (nm) size 6.5 4.5 3.25 2.25 1.6 1.1 MPU
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
New Metrology Need: Standardized New Metrology Need: Standardized Statistics for Discretized DataStatistics for Discretized Data
• Some new methods fit measurement to a discrete set of possible results
• This could result in artificially good precision values that do not really evaluate process control capability
89 nm 89.5 nm 90 nm 90.5 nm 91 nm
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
2001 Metrology Requirements Summary2001 Metrology Requirements SummaryTechnology Node 130 nm 90nm 65 nm 45 nm 32 nm 22 nm Driver
Lithography MetrologyWafer Gate CD nm post-etch contol 6.5 3.7 2.5 1.8 1.3 0.9 MPU
Wafer CD Tool 3 Precision P/T=0.2 Isolated Lines
1.3 0.75 0.5 0.36 0.26 0.18 MPU
Line Edge Roughness (nm) 4.5 2.7 1.8 1.3 0.9 0.65 MPU
Line Edge Roughness Precision 3 (nm) 0.9 0.54 0.36 0.26 0.18 0.13 MPU
Overlay Control (nm) (mean +3 ) 45 31 26 18 13 9 MPU
Overlay Metrology Precision (nm) P/T=0.1 4.5 3.1 2.6 1.8 1.3 0.9 MPU
Front End Processes MetrologyLogic Dielectric Thick Precision 3 (nm) 0.005 0.004 0.0024 0.0024 0.0016 0.0016 MPU
Capacitor Thickness Precision 3 (nm) 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.07 DRAM
Metrology for Ultra-Shallow Junctions at Channel Xj (nm)
26 14.8 10 7.2 5.2 3.6 MPU
Interconnect MetrologyBarrier layer thick (nm) process range (±3 ) Precision 1 (nm)
1820%0.06
1120%0.036
820%0.027
720%0.023
520%0.017
420%0.01
MPU
Void size for 1 % Voiding in Copper Lines 32.5 22.5 16.25 11.25 8 5.5 MPU
Detection of Killer Pore at (nm) Size 6.5 4.5 3.25 2.25 1.6 1.1 MPU
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Novel Methods for FEM controlNovel Methods for FEM control
SL
e.g.150 nm lines300 nm pitch
Optical CD using Overlay System
Automatic cross-sectioning,
imaging and metrology from all sites of the
FEM
Dose Fo
cus
Dualbeam FIBFEI
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Status of Potential Status of Potential Solutions for CDSolutions for CD
• Single tool remove matching precision loss• CD-SEM supplier community expresses
confidence enhancements can extend traditional approach
• Real Time Scatterometry replaces library approach
• Scatterometry may require VUV • CD-AFM tip technology limits dense line and
contact measurement
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
CD-SEM Possibilities CD-SEM Possibilities
Conventional Imaging
HolographyLow
EnergyHigh
Energy
The
CD-SEM
(1)
The High Energy CD-SEM
(2)
The Point Projection
Microscope
(3)
The
CD-TEM
(4)
MODE ENERGY
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Leakage Current correlated to Leakage Current correlated to Line Edge RoughnessLine Edge Roughness
-8.0
-7.5
-7.0
-6.5
-6.0
-5.5
-5.0
-1.0 -0.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5Log Active Width
LER = 10 nmLER = 3 nm
IL @
500
A/
m Id
Center of data at 150 nm channel
length with drive current of 500 A/m
Leakage plotted versus active width
of transistor
The two lines show the dependence
for the case of low and high line edge
roughness.
Units for leakage current are A/m,
plotted on a logrithimic scalePatterson, et. al., SPIE 2001
Thanks to ITRS Litho TWG - Harry Levinson / Mauro Vasconi
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
CD-SEM a Potential Solution CD-SEM a Potential Solution for for Wafer and Mask / R&D + ProductionWafer and Mask / R&D + Production
Sato and Mizuno, EIPBN 2000, Palm Springs, CA
Barriers and Solutions
193 & 157 nm Resist Damage» lower dose images
Lineshape » tilt beam SEM vs software
Precision Improvements» new nano-tip source
Depth of Focus» new SEM concept needed
Ultimate Limit of CD-SEM» ~ 5 nm for etched poly Si Gate
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Gaps in FEP Metrology
• Physical Metrology for high k gate stack– Optical Models for next High k (beyond HfO2)– Interfacial control for interface between high k
and silicon
• Electrical Metrology for high k gate stack– Application of Non-contact C-V to next High k
(beyond HfO2)– Comparison of non-contact electrical to C-V
Technology Node 130 nm 90nm 65 nm 45 nm 32 nm 22 nm DriverFront End Processes MetrologyLogic Dielectric Thick Precision 3 (nm) 0.005 0.004 0.0024 0.0024 0.0016 0.0016 MPU
Metrology for Ultra-Shallow Junctions at Channel Xj (nm)
26 14.8 10 7.2 5.2 3.6 MPU
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
FEP Metrology FEP Metrology
• Optical and Electrical measurement of High can be done for development but needs to be robust for manufacturing
• Metrology for interface below High needs R&D
• USJ Metrology needs development for < 65 nm
• FERAM needs fatigue testing for 1016 read/write cycles
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Voids in CopperVoids in CopperPore Size/Killer Pores in Low kPore Size/Killer Pores in Low k
• Random isolated void detection in copper lines may be used in development at levels
above the < 1% metric
• <1% may not be measurable
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Interconnect Metrology SolutionsInterconnect Metrology SolutionsBarrier/Seed Cu FilmsBarrier/Seed Cu Films
ZY
X
Wafer Positioning Stage
Sample
Detector
Aperture
Lens
Probe Laser
Excitation Laser
Neutral Density (ND) Filters
Phase Masks (PM)
Lens
Lens
20x 90 mm Spot Size
~1-2 seconds/point (measurement + data analysis + stage motion)
Excitation LaserDiode-Pumped, Pulsed, Frequency-Doubled Nd:YAG microchip laser. 600 ps Pulse
AlGaAs Diode Laser
5 Potential Solutions 5 Potential Solutions all expected to meet precision requirementsall expected to meet precision requirements
some are extendable to patterned waferssome are extendable to patterned wafers
Objective lens
GenerationlaserProbe laser
Beam splitter
Visionsystem
Detector
Detail inwafer
Junction
Beam
Excess carriers
X-Ray Tube
Thin-Film Sample
Monochromator
Spatially ResolvingX-Ray Sensor
0.15 mm 1psec
Pulsed Laser(200 fsec; 90 MHz) 800nm
Servo delay
Lens
FrequencyDoubler
photocell
Wafer
WavelengthSelector
Acoustic ISTSPicosecond acoustics
X-ray reflectivityX-ray fluorescence
Non-contact resistivity
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
2001 Grand Challenges2001 Grand Challenges
• Development of Metrology tools in time. • Rapid non-destructive metrology for
CD, overlay, defect detection and line edge roughness that meets ITRS timing and technology requirements.
4 December 2002, ITRS 2002 Update Conference
Will Market Risks allow for innovation?Will Market Risks allow for innovation?
Metrology RoadmapMetrology Roadmap
Metrology Timing Metrology Timing vsvsInfrastructure CapabilitiesInfrastructure Capabilities
Process Tool Supplier Development
Pilot Line FAB Startup & Volume Manufacture
Volume Sales of Metrology Tools
Need for Process Tool
Qualification/Preproduction
Development Underway
Typical Potential Solutions Time Line for Process Tool
Research Required
Need for Metrology Tool
Gap in long term R&D Gap in long term R&D Spending + Development Spending + Development Funding ModelFunding Model