Part of the  

Solid State Technology


The Confab


About  |  Contact

Posts Tagged ‘RTA’

5nm Node Needs EUV for Economics

Thursday, January 29th, 2015


By Ed Korczynski, Sr. Technical Editor


At IEDM 2014 last month in San Francisco, Applied Materials sponsored an evening panel discussion on the theme of “How do we continue past 7nm?” Given that leading fabs are now ramping 14nm node processes, and exploring manufacturing options for the 10nm node, “past 7nm” means 5nm node processing. There are many device options possible, but cost-effective manufacturing at this scale will require Extreme Ultra-Violet (EUV) lithography to avoid the costs of quadruple-patterning.

Fig. 1: Panelists discuss future IC manufacturing and design possibilities in San Francisco on December 16, 2014. (Source: Pete Singer)

Figure 1 shows the panel being moderated by Professor Mark Rodwell of the University of California Santa Barbara, composed of the following industry experts:

  • Karim Arabi, Ph.D. – vice president, engineering, Qualcomm,
  • Michael Guillorn, Ph.D. – research staff member, IBM,
  • Witek Maszara, Ph.D. – distinguished member of technical staff, GLOBALFOUNDRIES,
  • Aaron Thean, Ph.D. – vice president, logic process technologies, imec, and
  • Satheesh Kuppurao, Ph.D. – vice president, front end products group, Applied Materials.

Arabi said that from the design perspective the overarching concern is to keep “innovating at the edge” of instantaneous and mobile processing. At the transistor level, the 10nm node process will be similar to that at the 14nm node, though perhaps with alternate channels. The 7nm node will be an inflection point with more innovation needed such as gate-all-around (GAA) nanowires in a horizontal array. By the 5nm node there’s no way to avoid tunnel FETs and III-V channels and possibly vertical nanowires, though self-heating issues could become very challenging. There’s no shortage of good ideas in the front end and lots of optimism that we’ll be able to make the transistors somehow, but the situation in the backend of on-chip metal interconnect is looking like it could become a bottleneck.

Guillorn extolled the virtues of embedded-memory to accelerate logic functions, as a great example of co-optimization at the chip level providing a real boost in performance at the system level. The infection at 7nm and beyond could lead to GAA Carbon Nano-Tube (CNT) as the minimum functional device. It’s limited to think about future devices only in terms of dimensional shrinks, since much of the performance improvement will come from new materials and new device and technology integration. In addition to concerns with interconnects, maintaining acceptable resistance in transistor contacts will be very difficult with reduced contact areas.

Maszara provided target numbers for a 5nm node technology to provide a 50% area shrink over 7nm:  gate pitch of 30nm, and interconnect level Metal 1 (M1) pitch of 20nm. To reach those targets, GLOBALFOUNDRIES’ cost models show that EUV with ~0.5 N.A. would be needed. Even if much of the lithography could use some manner of Directed Self-Assembly (DSA), EUV would still be needed for cut-masks and contacts. In terms of device performance, either finFET or nanowires could provide desired off current but the challenge then becomes how to get the on current for intended mobile applications? Alternative channels with high mobility materials could work but it remains to be seen how they will be integrated. A rough calculation of cost is the number of mask layers, and for 5nm node processing the cost/transistor could still go down if the industry has ideal EUV. Otherwise, the only affordable way to go may be stay at 7nm node specs but do transistor stacking.

Thein detailed why electrostatic scaling is a key factor. Parasitics will be extraordinary for any 5nm node devices due to the intrinsically higher number of surfaces and junctions within the same volume. Just the parasitic capacitances at 7nm are modeled as being 75% of the total capacitance of the chip. The device trend from planar to finFET to nanowires means proportionally increasing relative surface areas, which results in inherently greater sensitivity to surface-defects and interface-traps. Scaling to smaller structures may not help you if you loose most of the current and voltage in non-useful traps and defects, and that has already been seen in comparisons of III-V finFETs and nanowires. Also, 2D scaling of CMOS gates is not sustainable, and so one motivation for considering vertical transistors for logic at 5nm would be to allow for 20nm gates at 30nm pitch.

Kappurao reminded attendees that while there is still uncertainty regarding the device structures beyond 7nm, there is certainty in 4 trends for equipment processes the industry will need:

  1. everything is an interface requiring precision materials engineering,
  2. film depositions are either atomic-layer or selective films or even lattice-matched,
  3. pattern definition using dry selective-removal and directed self-assembly, and
  4. architecture in 3D means high aspect-ratio processing and non-equilibrium processing.

An example of non-equilibrium processing is single-wafer rapid-thermal-annealers (RTA) that today run for nanoseconds—providing the same or even better performance than equilibrium. Figure 2 shows that a cobalt-liner for copper lines along with a selective-cobalt cap provides a 10x improvement in electromigration compared to the previous process-of-record, which is an example of precision materials engineering solving scaling performance issues.

Fig. 2: ElectroMigration (EM) lifetimes for on-chip interconnects made with either conventional Cu or Cu lined and capped with Co, showing 10 times improvement with the latter. (Source: Applied Materials)

“We have to figure out how to control these materials,” reminded Kappurao. “At 5nm we’re talking about atomic precision, and we have to invent technologies that can control these things reliably in a manufacturable manner.” Whether it’s channel or contact or gate or interconnect, all the materials are going to change as we keep adding more functionality at smaller device sizes.

There is tremendous momentum in the industry behind density scaling, but when economic limits of 2D scaling are reached then designers will have to start working on 3D monolithic. It is likely that the industry will need even more integration of design and manufacturing, because it will be very challenging to keep the cost-per-function decreasing. After CMOS there are still many options for new devices to arrive in the form of spintronics or tunnel-FETs or quantum-dots.

However, Arabi reminded attendees as to why the industry has stayed with CMOS digital synchronous technology leading to design tools and a manufacturing roadmap in an ecosystem. “The industry hit a jackpot with CMOS digital. Let’s face it, we have not even been able to do asynchronous logic…even though people tried it for many years. My prediction is we’ll go as far as we can until we hit atomic limits.”

Germanium Junctions for CMOS

Tuesday, November 25th, 2014


By Ed Korczynski, Sr. Technical Editor, Solid State Technology and SemiMD

It is nearly certain that alternate channel materials with higher mobilities will be needed to replace silicon (Si) in future CMOS ICs. The best PMOS channels are made with germanium (Ge), while there are many possible elements and compounds in R&D competition to form the NMOS channel, in part because of difficulties in forming stable n-junctions in Ge. If the industry can do NMOS with Ge then the integration with Ge PMOS would be much simpler than having to try to integrate a compound semiconductor such as gallium-arsenide or indium-phosphide.

In considering Ge channels in future devices, we must anticipate that they will be part of finFET structures. Both bulk-silicon and silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafers will be used to build 3D finFET device structures for future CMOS ICs. Ultra-Shallow Junctions (USJ) will be needed to make contacts to channels that are nanoscale.

John Borland is a renowned expert in junction-formation technology, and now a principle with Advanced Integrated Photonics. In a Junction Formation side-conference at SEMICON West 2014, Borland presented a summary of data that had first been shown by co-author Paul Konkola at the 2014 International Conference on Ion Implant Technology. Their work on “Implant Dopant Activation Comparison Between Silicon and Germanium” provides valuable insights into the intrinsic differences between the two semiconducting materials.

P-type implants into Ge showed an interesting self-activation (seen as a decrease in of p-type dopant after implant, especially for monomer B as the dose increases.  Using 4-Point-Probe (4PP) to measure sheet-resistance (Rs), the 5E14/cm2 B-implant Rs was 190Ω/□ and at higher implant dose of 5E15/cm2 Rs was 120Ω/□. B requires temperatures >600°C for full activation in PMOS Ge channels, and generally results in minimal dopant diffusion for USJ.

Figure 1 shows a comparison between P, As, and Sb implanted dopants at 1E16/cm2 into both a Si wafer and 1µm Ge-epilayer on Si after various anneals. The sheet-resistance values for all three n-type dopants were always lower in Ge than in Si over the 625-900°C RTA range by about 5x for P and 10x for As and Sb. Another experiment to study the results for co-implants of P+Sb, P+C, and P+F using a Si-cap layer did not show any enhanced n-type dopant activation.

Fig.1: Sheet-resistance (Rs) versus RTA temperatures for P, As, and Sb implanted dopants into Ge and Si. (Source: Borland)

Prof. Saraswat of Stanford University showed in 2005—at the spring Materials Research Society meeting— that n-type activation in Ge is inherently difficult. In that same year, Borland was the lead author of an article in Solid State Technology (July 2005, p.45) entited, “Meeting challenges for engineering the gate stack”, in which the authors advocated for using a Si-cap for P implant to enable high temperature n-type dopant activation with minimal diffusion for shallow n+ Ge junctions that can be used for Ge nMOS. Now, almost 10 year later, Borland is able to show that it can be done.

Ge Channel Integration and Metrology

Nano-scale Ge channels wrapped around 3D fin structures will be difficult to form before they can be implanted. However, whether formed in a Replacement Metal Gate (RMG) or epitaxial-etchback process, one commonality is that Ge channels will need abrupt junctions to fit into shrunk device structures. Also, as device structures have continued to shrink, the junction formation challenges between “planar” devices and 3D finFET have converged since the “2D” structures now have nano-scale 3D topography.

Adam Brand, senior director of transistor technology in the Advanced Product Technology Development group of Applied Materials, explained that, “Heated beamline implants are best when the priority is precise dose and energy control without lattice damage. Plasma doping (PLAD) is best when the priority is to deliver a high dose and conformal implant.”

Ehud Tzuri, director strategic marketing in the Process Diagnostic and Metrology group at Applied Materials reminds us that control of the Ge material quality, as specified by data on the count and lengths of stacking-faults and other crystalline dislocations, could be done by X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) or by some new disruptive technology. Cross-section Transmission Electron Microscopy (X-TEM) is the definitive technology for looking at nanoscale material quality, but since it is expensive and the sample must be destroyed it cannot be used for process control.

Figure 2 shows X-TEM results for 1 µm thick Ge epi-layers after 625°C and 900°C RTA. Due to the intrinsic lattice mis-match between Ge and Si there will always be some defects at the surface, as indicated by arrows in the figure. However, stacking faults are clearly seen in the lower RTA sample, while the 900°C anneal shows no stacking-faults and so should result in superior integrated device performance.

Fig. 2: Cross-section TEM of 1µm Ge-epi after 625°C and 900°C RTA, showing great reduction in stacking-faults with the higher annealing temperature. (Source: Borland)

Borland explains that the stacking-faults in Ge channels on finFETs would protrude to the surface, and so could not be mitigated by the use of the “Aspect-Ratio Trapping” (ART) integration trick that has been investigated by imec. However, the use of a silicon-oxide cap allows for the use of 900°C RTA which is hot enough to anneal out the defects in the crystal.

Brand provides an example of why integration challenges of Ge channels include subtle considerations, “The most important consideration for USJ in the FinFET era is to scale down the channel body width to improve electrostatics. Germanium has a higher semiconductor dielectric constant than silicon so a slightly lower body width will be needed to reach the same gate length due to the capacitive coupling.”

Junction formation in Ge channels will be one of the nanoscale materials engineering challenges for future CMOS finFETs. Either XRD or some other metrology technology will be needed for control. Integration will include the need to control the materials on the top and the bottom surfaces of channels to ensure that dopant atoms activate without diffusing away. The remaining challenge is to develop the shortest RTA process possible to minimize all diffusions.

— E. K.

Extension Media websites place cookies on your device to give you the best user experience. By using our websites, you agree to placement of these cookies and to our Privacy Policy. Please click here to accept.