Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

EM calibration based on Post OPC layout analysis
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $17.00 $21.00

Paper Abstract

Design for Manufacturability (DFM) involves changes to the design and CAD tools to help increase pattern printability and improve process control. Design for Reliability (DFR) performs the same to improve reliability of devices from failures such as Electromigration (EM), gate-oxide break down, hot carrier injection (HCI), Negative Bias Temperature Insatiability (NBTI) and mechanical stress effects. Electromigration (EM) occurs due to migration or displacement of atoms as a result of the movement of electrons through a conducting medium. The rate of migration determines the Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) which is modeled as a function of temperature and current density. The model itself is calibrated through failure analysis (FA) of parts that are deemed to have failed due to EM against design parameters such as linewidth. Reliability Verification (RV) of a design involves verifying that every conducting line in a design meets certain MTTF threshold. In order to perform RV, current density for each wire must be computed. Current itself is a function of the parasitics that are determined through RC extraction. The standard practice is to perform the RC extraction and current density calculation on drawn, pre-OPC layouts. If a wire fails to meet threshold for MTTF, it may be resized. Subsequently, mask preparation steps such as OPC and PSM introduce extra features such as SRAFs, jogs,hammerheads and serifs that change their resistance, capacitance and current density values. Hence, calibrating EM model based on pre-OPC layouts will lead to different results compared to post-OPC layouts. In this work, we compare EM model calibration and reliability check based on drawn layout versus predicted layout, where the drawn layout is pre-OPC layout and predicted layout is based on litho simulation of post-OPC layout. Results show significant divergence between these two approaches, making a case for methodology based on predicted layout.

Paper Details

Date Published: 2 April 2010
PDF: 12 pages
Proc. SPIE 7641, Design for Manufacturability through Design-Process Integration IV, 764113 (2 April 2010); doi: 10.1117/12.846567
Show Author Affiliations
Aswin Sreedhar, Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst (United States)
Sandip Kundu, Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 7641:
Design for Manufacturability through Design-Process Integration IV
Michael L. Rieger; Joerg Thiele, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top