Share Email Print

Proceedings Paper

The comparison of OPC performance and run time for dense versus sparse solutions
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00
cover GOOD NEWS! Your organization subscribes to the SPIE Digital Library. You may be able to download this paper for free. Check Access

Paper Abstract

The lithographic processes and resolution enhancement techniques (RET) needed to achieve pattern fidelity are becoming more complicated as the required critical dimensions (CDs) shrink. For technology nodes with smaller devices and tolerances, more complex models and proximity corrections are needed and these significantly increase the computational requirements. New simulation techniques are required to address these computational challenges. The new simulation technique we focus on in this work is dense optical proximity correction (OPC). Sparse OPC tools typically require a laborious, manual and time consuming OPC optimization approach. In contrast, dense OPC uses pixel-based simulation that does not need as much manual setup. Dense OPC was introduced because sparse simulation methodology causes run times to explode as the pattern density increases, since the number of simulation sites in a given optical radius increases. In this work, we completed a comparison of the OPC modeling performance and run time for the dense and the sparse solutions. The analysis found the computational run time to be highly design dependant. The result should lead to the improvement of the quality and performance of the OPC solution and shed light on the pros and cons of using dense versus sparse solution. This will help OPC engineers to decide which solution to apply to their particular situation.

Paper Details

Date Published: 2 April 2008
PDF: 10 pages
Proc. SPIE 6924, Optical Microlithography XXI, 69243G (2 April 2008); doi: 10.1117/12.772902
Show Author Affiliations
Amr Abdo, IBM Systems and Technology Group (United States)
Ian Stobert, IBM Systems and Technology Group (United States)
Ramya Viswanathan, IBM Systems and Technology Group (United States)
Ryan Burns, IBM Systems and Technology Group (United States)
Klaus Herold, Infineon (United States)
Chidam Kallingal, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (United States)
Jason Meiring, IBM Systems and Technology Group (United States)
James Oberschmidt, IBM Systems and Technology Group (United States)
Scott Mansfield, IBM Systems and Technology Group (United States)

Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 6924:
Optical Microlithography XXI
Harry J. Levinson; Mircea V. Dusa, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top