michael d. wedlake - linxconferences.com · published globalfoundries research . surface...

SAS

1

Michael D. Wedlake

Principal Engineer, Process Integration Engineering Samsung Austin Semiconductor

S.LSI Foundry Business Surface Preparation and Cleaning Conference 2018, Boston, MA, April 9, 2018

0

SAS

1

Presentation Overview

1. Background a. CMP Market b. CMP Equipment Market (1997-2017) c. Post CMP Clean Market d. End Customers

2. Significant Problems with Post CMP Cleans a. Published GLOBALFOUNDRIES research b. Examples from SAMSUNG

3. Post CMP Cleans Innovation Challenges 4. Post CMP Cleans Innovation Opportunities

Surface Preparation and Cleaning Conference 2018, Boston, MA, April 9, 2018

SAS

2






SAS

3 2015 CMP Consumable Market Shares, Source: http://www.avsusergroups.org/cmpug_pdfs/CMP2015_7_5Davis.pdf CMP Market Size Data, Source: http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/chemical-mechanical-planarization.asp

1a. Background – CMP Market

Typical Total Cost of CMP Property, Plant, Equipment 28% Slurry 28% CMP Equipment 19% Pads 10% Variable Costs 10% Direct Labor 5%

100%

Takeaway: Post CMP Cleaning is a small portion of the cost of the entire process, but critical for success.

Global CMP market: Worth $3.32B in 2014 Projected worth $4.94B in 2020 CAGR is 6.83% CMP Consumable market: Worth $2.25B in 2014 Projected worth $3.21B in 2020 CAGR is 6.10% CMP Equipment market: Worth $1.07B in 2014 Projected worth $1.73B in 2020 CAGR is 8.32%

Consumable $ Millions % Slurry 1260 56.2% Pads 685 30.6%

Conditioners 205 9.1% PVA Brushes 48 2.1% Slurry Filters 43 1.9%

Total 2241 100.0%


http://www.avsusergroups.org/cmpug_pdfs/CMP2015_7_5Davis.pdf

http://www.avsusergroups.org/cmpug_pdfs/CMP2015_7_5Davis.pdf

http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/chemical-mechanical-planarization.asp






SAS

4

1b. Background – CMP Equipment Market


SAS

5

1b. Background – CMP Equipment Market

• Written by William O’Mara in May 1998 in Solid State Technology, describing the situation in CMP 20 years ago.

• “CMP is taking the IC manufacturing industry by storm.”

• “Market growth rates of up to 100%/year have been common”

• “As these new companies compete with early, more entrenched entrants, a shakeout is looming ahead.”

• Top 4 firms control 86% of the market; 16 companies fight for 14%.

• Most wafer fab equipment categories are dominated by a single supplier, termed the "800-pound gorilla" of that market

• Who will be the “800-pound gorilla”?


SAS

6

1b. Background - Inevitable Shakeout in CMP

Suppliers of CMP Polishing & Grinding Equipment 1997 2017

Patterned Wafer Si Wafer Fab Equipment

300 mm Patterned Wafer Tool Available? Market Share Tool Available? Market Share

Applied Materials* X 14.5% X X ~76% Aplex X Part of 1%

Cybeq Nano Technology X 1.4% X Doosan Machinery X Part of 1%

Ebara X 22.2% X X ~24% Fujikoshi X Part of 1% X

ICMP X Part of 1% IPEC Planar X 26.2%

Lam Research X Part of 1% X Lapmaster SFT X 1.3% X

Obsidian X Part of 1% disk Okamoto X 1.4% X

Peter Wolters X Part of 1% X Pressi X Part of 1% X

Sony Precision Machinery X Part of 1% Speedfam X 21.5% X Strasbaugh X 7.7% X

Sumitomoa Metal X 2.0% X Toshiba X 0.7% X

Tokyo Seimitsu X Part of 1% X

Mer

ged

in 1

998,

47.

5% m

arke

t sh

are,

>1,

000

polis

her

s in

stal

led, $3

74.3

M

$517.7 million Sources: “The Inevitable Shakeout in the CMP Equipment Market” 05/01/1998 William O’Mara, O’Mara and Associates, Palo Alto, California http://electroiq.com/issue/?id=18460&url=/articles/sst/print/volume-41/issue-5/departments/market-watch/the-inevitable-shakeout-in-the-cmp-equipment-market.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8DamJePrl9gJ:micromagazine.fabtech.org/archive/99/01/break.html+&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/chemical-mechanical-planarization.asp Chemical Mechanical Polishing in Silicon Processing, S. Li, R. Miller, 2000, Chapter 2: Equipment, Thomas Bibby and Karey Holland, SpeedFam-IPEC Chandler, Arizona *Applied Materials entered the CMP market in 1995 with the Mirra-Mesa 200mm tool. http://www.appliedmaterials.com/company/about/history/1990s

$1,356 million

$1,031 M

$325 M


SAS

7 Image Source: http://www.appliedmaterials.com/products/reflexion-lk-cmp https://www.usnews.com/cmsmedia/4c/c5/7ab7f43445519e1f78303eb29095/160531-harambe-editorial.jpg

1b. Background – CMP Equipment

76% market share


http://www.appliedmaterials.com/products/reflexion-lk-cmp






https://www.usnews.com/cmsmedia/4c/c5/7ab7f43445519e1f78303eb29095/160531-harambe-editorial.jpg






SAS

8

To enhance productivity and Cost-of-ownership the F*REX300SII has two more platens (4 in total), a layout which enables a variety of different parallel and serial polishing modes targeting Cu and other advanced applications. The layout enables a greater throughput especially for 2 step processes. The F*REX300SII system is equipped with 1 head per platen and 3 cleaning stations and with 4 FOUP load ports. Further options include the latest Profile head technology, Pad thickness and retainer ring thickness monitoring, Endpoint monitoring and Inline metrology. Up to three stages cleaning module: The cleaning module consists of a sequence of brush and pencil cleaning and rinse stations enabling a minimum defectivity after CMP.


24% market share

Source: http://www.ebara-pm.eu/chemical-mechanical-polishing.html


http://www.ebara-pm.eu/chemical-mechanical-polishing.html









SAS

9


Reflexion LK Configuration Image SOURCE: http://www.fabtech.org/product_briefings/_a/new_product_applied_materials_adds_fullvision_real_time_control_to_cmp_plat/ Brush Images: SOURCE: 2013 Applied Materials Patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130139851

Typical Attributes of Post CMP Cleaner 1. Megasonic Cleaning acoustic energy liberates defects. 2. Brush Box 1 (double-sided scrub brushes, typically

cylindrical nodule covered brush made of hydrophilic porous polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), water is continuously pumped through the brush core and then through the porous brush. Chemical is supplied from spray bars.

3. Brush Box 2 (same configuration as BB1) 4. Spin Rinse Dry, more typically Marangoni or IPA Dryer.


http://www.fabtech.org/product_briefings/_a/new_product_applied_materials_adds_fullvision_real_time_control_to_cmp_plat/

https://www.google.com/patents/US20130139851

SAS

10

1c. Background – Post CMP Clean Market

PVA Brushes Market Share TAM ITW (Rippey, Texwipe) ~80%

$30-50M Aion (formerly Kanebo, manufacturer for Rippey) Entegris ~20% BrushTek

PCMP Cleaning Chemistry Suppliers Market Share TAM Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 25%

$90-140M

Anji Microelectronics, Inc. Entegris (ATMI Inc. > ESC) 27% BASF SE Cabot Microelectronics Corp. (Epoch Materials of Taiwan) DuPont EKC Technology JT Baker Kanto Chemical Company, Inc. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation Shanghai Sinyang Semiconductor Materials Co., Ltd. Technic France Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Ltd.

Source: http://www.rippey.com/products.htm

Famous Clean Chems: Applied Materials’s Electraclean™ (APCI) APCI CoppeReady® CP72B (acid) & CP74 (base) ATMI Planarclean and ESC cleans DuPont’s PCMP5510 J.T. Baker pCMP-800/850 Mitsubishi Chemical MCX-SDR4 Wako’s CX-100


http://www.rippey.com/products.htm

http://www.rippey.com/products.htm

SAS

11

Source: Chemical Mechanical Polishing in Silicon Processing, S. Li, R. Miller, 2000 Chapter 7: Post-CMP Clean, Francois Tardif, LETI, Grenoble, France

1c. Background – Post CMP Clean Market

Zeta Potential – Key to Particle Removal Efficiency


SAS

12

1d. Background – End Customers


SAS

13



SOURCE: http://www.icinsights.com/news/bulletins/samsung-forecast-to-top-intel-as-the-1-semiconductor-supplier-in-2017-/

SAS

14 SOURCE: http://www.icinsights.com/news/bulletins/Apple-Drove-Entire-Foundry-Sales-Increase-At-TSMC-In-2015/ https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/top-ten-foundries-2017-2017-12/



Company Type Location 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Market Share TSMC Pure-Play Taiwan 19935 24975 26439 29437 32040 55.90% Globalfoundries Pure-Play U.S. 4122 4355 5019 4999 5407 9.40% UMC Pure-Play Taiwan 3959 4331 4464 4587 4898 8.50% Samsung IDM South Korea / U.S. 3450 2590 2670 4284 4398 7.70% SMIC Pure-Play China 1962 1970 2236 2914 3099 5.40% Powerchip IDM Taiwan 1182 1291 1268 870 1035 1.80% TowerJazz Pure-Play Israel 505 828 961 1249 1388 2.40% Fujitsu IDM Japan 440 645 870 N/A Vanguard Pure-Play Taiwan 713 790 736 N/A Hua Hong Semi Pure-Play China 585 665 650 721 807 1.40% Dongbu HiTek Pure-Play South Korea 452 541 593 666 676 1.20% SSMC Pure-Play Singapore 496 480 460 N/A WIN Pure-Play Taiwan 354 327 379 N/A Non-TSMC 18220 18813 20306 20290 21708

y = 2867.2x - 6E+06 R² = 0.9703

y = 845.3x - 2E+06 R² = 0.9421

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Reve

nue

(US$

Mill

ion)

Year

Foundry Revenues TSMCGlobalfoundriesUMCSamsungSMICPowerchipTowerJazzFujitsuVanguardHua Hong SemiDongbu HiTekSSMCWINNon-TSMCLinear (TSMC)Linear (Non-TSMC)

http://www.icinsights.com/news/bulletins/Apple-Drove-Entire-Foundry-Sales-Increase-At-TSMC-In-2015/

https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/top-ten-foundries-2017-2017-12/

SAS

1 15

Source: http://www.icinsights.com/news/bulletins/Number-Of-IC-Manufacturers-Using-300mm-Wafers-Less-Than-Half-Using-200mm-Wafers/



93%

54% 57%

SAS

1 16 SOURCE: http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=77cdbf15a0a91de4d98102b0a&id=415ca909f1&e=7d246f3eb2 * Assumes 100% capacity is being used.


Company Revenue ($M) Capacity (K w/m) 2015 Revenue ($M) 2015 Annual Capacity 2015 Avg $/wfr* Samsung 41606 2345 42043 28,140,000 $ 1,478.54

TSMC 26439 1657 26439 19,884,000 $ 1,329.66 Micron 14816 1539 14483 18,468,000 $ 802.25

Toshiba/SanDisk 9734 1276 9429 15,312,000 $ 635.71 SK Hynix 16917 1170 16649 14,040,000 $ 1,204.91

GlobalFoundries 5019 646 5729 7,752,000 $ 647.45 Intel 50494 719 52144 8,628,000 $ 5,852.34 UMC 4464 526 4464 6,312,000 $ 707.22

Texas Instruments 12260 520 12112 6,240,000 $ 1,964.74 STMicroelectronics 6840 487 6873 5,844,000 $ 1,170.43


http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=77cdbf15a0a91de4d98102b0a&id=415ca909f1&e=7d246f3eb2




SAS

17

Source: http://www.icinsights.com/news/bulletins/Semiconductor-RD-Growth-Slows-In-2015/



SAS

18



SAS

1 19

Source: http://www.icinsights.com/news/bulletins/Number-Of-IC-Manufacturers-Using-300mm-Wafers-Less-Than-Half-Using-200mm-Wafers/



SAS

20



SAS

21 http://semiconductorexpert.blogspot.com/2016/01/semiconductor-revenue-growth-ranking.html

1d. Background – Ultimate End Customers


SAS

22






SAS

23

2a. Significant Problems with PCMP Cleans

Last year at SPCC 2017… Source: https://spcc2017.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Kim_CMP-Technological-Paradigm-Shift-To-Surface-Cleaning.pdf


SAS

24


For several years GLOBALFOUNDRIES has presented many interesting papers on PCMP Cleaning.

“The Origin of Defects in Replacement Metal Gate (RMG) CMP” Hong Jin Kim, Bohra Girish, Huey-Ming Wang, Venugopal Govindarajulu, Dinesh Koli CAMP Conference 2016, Lake Placid, NY


SAS

25

• Brush breakin procedure is very important for removing initial contamination from the brush.

• Brush rotational speed strongly influences defectivity

• Slowly touching to the wafer can reduce transfer of particles from the brush to the wafer.



SAS

26

Study on Cu CMP Defects Failure Mechanism from the Viewpoint of Cleaner Module Design -- Ji Chul Yang (GLOBALFOUNDRIES), CAMP Conference in Lake Placid, NY 2016. Fundamental study on reducing Cu metal flakes. Fundamental Study of Cleaner Module Design. Megasonic, Jet Spray, Pencil Brush, Horizontal Type Brush, Vertical Brush+Dryer. Vertical Brush. Brush only, Pencil + Brush, Meg + Brush, Brush + Brush. Particle removal efficiency: Jet Spray, Pencil Brush, One Brush, Two Brush. A Frictional Analysis of Various Types of PVA Brushes and an Attempt to the Direct Observation of its Contact Condition -- Toshiyuki Sanada (Shizuoka University), CAMP Conference in Lake Placid, NY, 2016 Pen type brush is manufactured differently from the conventional PVA roller brush. A dense skin layer exists on regular PVA brushes while no skin layer is present on the pen brush. Air and water are incorporated into the brush during cleaning. My question: If the pen brushes performs so much better, how do we remove the skin from the regular PVA brushes?


ICPT 2015


SAS

27

2b. pCMP Clean Examples from Samsung

We have had our shares of struggles and triumphs: 1. Organic residue issues (source: pad, clean chemistries) 2. Alumina slurry contamination 3. Visible metallic byproduct contamination linked to 3D

Nanotopography (2016 CAMP) 4. Brush loading / cross-contamination 5. Invisible organic/metallic byproduct contamination 6. IPA Spray bar contamination 7. Clean chemistry attack 8. Brush torque correlation to yield 9. Studies on light induced corrosion

I will review the examples in red.


SAS

28

Composite Wafer Map

Composite Die

Time

Par

ticl

e D

efec

t Count

Density Map Comparison of Defects / Density

2b. pCMP Clean Problem #1

Alumina particle contamination example


SAS

1 29


Brush Loading Contamination

SAS

30

IPA-Dryer Only 5-sec DI BB1 5-sec DI BB2

5-sec DI BB2 5-sec DI BB1 5-sec DI BB1 10-sec DI BB1 20-sec DI BB1 40-sec DI BB1 5-sec DI BB2

10-sec DI BB2 20-sec DI BB2 40-sec DI BB2 5-sec HF BB1 10-sec HF BB1 20-sec HF BB1 40-sec HF BB1 5-sec NH4OH BB2

10-sec NH4OH BB2 20-sec NH4OH BB2 40-sec NH4OH BB2 POR, 5-sec HF +5-sec NH4OH

Reverse POR, 5-sec NH4OH + 5-sec HF

POR, 10-sec HF +10-sec NH4OH


Simulated Double BB2 (5+5 NH4OH)

Simulated Double BB1 (5+5 HF)

SEM and EDX Reviewed


Experimentation with Brand New Brushes: • Heavy organic residue • IPA Dryer has some contamination • Water only scrubbing is much worse than chemical cleaning • NH4OH brush (BB2) is much cleaner than HF brush (BB1) • HF brush has random straight line defects • Cleanest results achieved with HF, then NH4OH

SAS

31











Experimentation with Brand End-of-Life Brushes: • Heavy metallic residue • IPA Dryer has some edge contamination (9:00 in particular) • Water only scrubbing is much worse than chemical cleaning • NH4OH brush (BB2) is much cleaner than HF brush (BB1) • HF brush has random straight line defects • Cleanest results achieved with HF, then NH4OH


SAS











Experimentation with Brand End-of-Life Brushes: • Heavy metallic residue • IPA Dryer has some edge contamination (9:00 in particular) • Water only scrubbing is much worse than chemical cleaning • NH4OH brush (BB2) is much cleaner than HF brush (BB1) • HF brush has random straight line defects • Cleanest results achieved with HF, then NH4OH 32

2b. pCMP Clean Problems #2

SAS

33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Oxi

de R

emov

al (A

)

Radius (mm)

Tool Audit: Cleaner Partition

Slot15-40-sec (HF)

Slot14-20-sec (HF)

Slot13-10-sec (HF)

Slot22-10-sec (HF)

Slot23-10-sec (HF)

Slot25-5-sec (HF) x2

Slot12-5-sec (HF)

Slot20-5-sec (HF)

Slot21-5-sec (HF)


SAS

34

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Nor

mal

ized

Oxi

de R

emov

al (A

)

Radius (mm)

Tool Audit: Cleaner Partition

Slot12-5-sec (HF)

Slot13-10-sec (HF)

Slot14-20-sec (HF)

Slot15-40-sec (HF)

Slot20-5-sec (HF)

Slot21-5-sec (HF)

Slot22-10-sec (HF)

Slot23-10-sec (HF)

Slot25-5-sec (HF) x2


SAS

35

y = 1.2726x + 3.0309 R² = 0.9973

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Oxi

de E

tch

Amou

nt (A

)

HF Exposure Time (sec)

HF Etch Rate, 9 data points

AVG

Linear (AVG)

5-sec + 5-sec


SAS

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Oxi

de R

emov

al (A

)

Radius (mm)

Tool1 vs. Tool2 vs. HF Exposure Time

Tool1-40-sec HF

Tool2-40-sec HF

Tool1-20-sec HF

Tool2-20-sec HF

Tool1-10-sec HF

Tool2-10-sec HF

Tool1-5-sec HF

Tool2-5-sec HF


SAS

37

y = 1.0567x + 3.2293 R² = 0.997

y = 1.2726x + 3.0309 R² = 0.9973

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Oxi

de E

tch

Amou

nt (A

)

HF Exposure Time (sec)

Tool1 vs. Tool2 HF Etch Rate

2b. pCMP Clean Problems #2

SAS

38

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

HF In

duce

d Lo

sses

(A)

Radius (mm)

Tool1 vs. Tool2 Normalized Etch Profiles

Tool1-5-sec HF

Tool1-10-sec HF

Tool1-20-sec HF

Tool1-40-sec HF

Tool2-5-sec HF

Tool2-10-sec HF

Tool2-20-sec HF

Tool2-40-sec HF


SAS

1 39


0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

0 25 50 75 100 125 150HF

Indu

ced

Loss

es (A

)

Radius (mm)

Tool1 Normalized Etch Profiles

SAS

GOOD GOOD

BAD

BAD


SAS

GO

OD

G

OO

D

BA

D

BA

D


SAS

42


Image Source: http://www.fao.org/docrep/s8684e/s8684e04.htm

SAS

43

Pre Post Adders


IPA spray bar was replaced to stop the presence of these silicon dioxide spheres.

SAS

1 44

Key: Tool1 Tool2 Tool3 Tool4

Time

Torq

ue

Low-Torque Group Has High Yield Across Whole Wafer

Yie

ld

Bin

Torque Torque

Yie

ld D

elta

Radius Spatial

2b. pCMP Clean Problem #4 Bin Loss (Lower is Better)

SAS

45






SAS

46

3. Post CMP Cleans Innovation Challenges

1. Equipment: Applied Materials and Ebara a. For best results, we must do CMP+Cleans b. Proprietary hardware c. Proprietary software d. How do we introduce new hardware for cleans?

2. More direct engagement on technical challenges a. Fab engineering challenges b. Equipment manufacturer c. Replacement parts d. Brush suppliers e. Clean chemical suppliers f. Third parties with new cleans technology g. Metrology suppliers – encountering more Non Visual Detectable Defects

3. Logistical challenges a. Safety approvals b. Tool time c. Chemical delivery system d. Metrology (defectivity scans, elemental analysis, etc.)

4. More Fab process engineering attention / specialization a. Post CMP Cleaning is often afterthought b. New equipment to study and calibrate cleans c. More research into how to maximize performance d. More research into hardware e. More research into consumables (chems / brushes)

5. Funding for R&D a. PVA and chemicals are a small part of CMP budget b. Funding would likely need to come from Fabs or Equipment suppliers

SAS

47






SAS

48

4. Post CMP Cleans Innovation Opportunities

CMP + Clean R&D

Center

CMP hardware supplier

Cleaner hardware

Brush supplier

Chemical Supplier

Facilities Supplier (In/Out)

Company R&D

Factory 5

Factory 1

Factory 2

Factory 3

Factory 4

Factory 1 is R&D sponsor for larger company • Receives funding from all other Factories and Corporate R&D • Allocated space for R&D tools and facilitation • Conducts research geared toward needs of entire company • Large factory economy of scale reduces costs

CMP + Clean R&D Center • Dedicated tool(s), Facilitization • Access to best metrology technology in Fab • Access to world class Failure/Surface Analysis Labs • Sensor and insitu analytics overkill • Safe Space for Creative Personalities • Run new CMP process to generate Yield, pFA

SAS

49


CMP + Clean R&D

Center

CMP hardware supplier

Cleaner hardware

Brush supplier

Chemical Supplier

Facilities Supplier (In/Out)

CMP + Clean R&D Center Objectives: • Demonstrate ROI

• Develop efficiency metrics • Lower defectivity • Higher Yield • Longer consumable lifetimes • Longer tool uptime • Turn waste into re-sellable product

Applied Materials and Ebara cooperation is critical to this project’s success. With 450 mm postponed indefinitely, major tool upgrades to the large installed 300mm base could be a lucrative revenue stream. Learning from 300mm improvements could pass to 200mm. Critical first question: Open or Closed Cleaner System. Fixed or Modular. The CMP + Clean R&D Center might have an one or more R&D tools with many modules evaluation modules and transportation schemes. The cleaner component of the tool might even be located in a separate tool with pass through. The objective would be to have a versatile tool for screening components and hardware that produce the lowest defectivity.

Applied Materials and Ebara, SCREEN Holdings Co., Ltd. (ex DNS), Modutek Corporation, Cleaning Technologies Group, Akrion Systems LLC, Speedline Technologies, Inc., ONBoard Solution Pty Ltd., Falcon Process Systems, AP&S International GmbH, MEI Wet Processing Systems and Services LLC, Tokyo Electron Limited (FSI International), SEMES and Lam Research Corporation

ITW (Rippey, Texwipe), Aion (formerly Kanebo), Entegris, BrushTek

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Anji Microelectronics, Inc. Entegris (ATMI Inc. > ESC) BASF SE Cabot Microelectronics Corp. (Epoch Materials of Taiwan) DuPont EKC Technology JT Baker Kanto Chemical Company, Inc. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation Shanghai Sinyang Semiconductor Materials Co., Ltd. Technic France Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Ltd.

SAS

50



Relative Advantages in… HVM Factory Supplier R&D Problem Identification X Pathfinding for Solutions / X Continuous Improvement / \ Cutting edge defect inspection X Cutting edge metrology X Economies of scale X -- UPW X -- Cleanroom X -- Maintenance X -- Silicon (NPWs, Short loops, Patterns) X Electrical Test X Analytical Labs X Wet Labs X Accumulation Problems (Marathon) X Hardware design expertise / X Control over existing platform X New cleans technology X Innovative new consumables X Domain knowledge, expertise, and insights / X Outside the Box Thinking X Permitted time to deeply study issues X Development of Analytical Test to Prove Theory / X

SAS

51


1. Sematech ADK 14nm Test Chip a. Test chip for modern era b. Open design enables open communication

2. CMP Center in Albany, NY a. Joint project of SUNY Polytechnic Institute and Sematech b. Air Products and Mitsubishi Chemical

3. IMEC 4. Engagement with Equipment Suppliers

a. Possibility of modifying the CMP Cleaner a. Incremental improvements b. Complete replacement c. Modular replacement

b. Modularity would lead to easier modification of hardware c. Potential for supplier to purchase their own hardware d. Modification leads to improved cleaning performance

5. Meetings Like This a. Surface Preparation and Cleaning Conference (SPCC) b. CMP User’s Group c. CAMP Conference d. International Conference on Planarization Technology (ICPT)

SAS

52


EXAMPLES OF HARDWARE IMPROVEMENTS: 1. Horizontal oriented brush cleaning

1. More even etching / cleaning 2. Better cleaning efficiency 3. More efficient transportation and use of time

2. Standalone equipment for brush break-in and brush regeneration

3. Brush cycling (front side, back side, cleaning/regeneration)

4. Additional chemical lines / choices within Brush Box 5. Pad Cleaning

SAS

53


Source: http://www.avsusergroups.org/cmpug_pdfs/cmp2010_4rhoades.pdf

Revisit horizontal wafer processing. Benefits: More even distribution of chemical. More compact layout. Potential for adding multiple cleaning stations, evaluation of new consumables.

SAS

54

Source: US6482678 B1


• Add multiple brushes to improve cleaning regardless of die level orientation and redundancy.

• Add automatic torque adjustment for brushes (brush gap adjustment APC)

• Adding quick swap-out of brushes so brushes can be de-loaded of contaminants.

SAS

55

CONCLUSIONS

1. Effective Post CMP Cleans are critical for Yield 2. Post CMP Cleans can’t be treated like an

afterthought; we can’t continue to coast 3. CMP’s equipment shakeout has occurred; how

do we innovate inside these tools? 4. Non-Visible Defects (NVD) are a major concern

now and into the future 5. Time to develop solutions is shortening 6. Focused R&D Centers within HVM with tight

coordination among all suppliers may be the fastest, cheapest solution – if you are interested I’d like to speak with you.

SAS

56

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENION

michael d. wedlake - linxconferences.com · published globalfoundries research . surface...

Documents