76401s by KLA Corporation

The impact of resist model on mask 3D simulation accuracy beyond 40nm node memory patterns Kao-Tun Chena, Shin-Shing Yeha, Ya-Hsuan Hsieha, Jun-Cheng Nelson Lai a, Stewart A. Robertsonb, John J. Biafore b, Sanjay Kapasi b , Arthur Lin b a

Powerchip Semiconductor Corp., No. 12 Li-Hsin RD, Hsinchu, Taiwan KLA-Tencor Corp., 8834 N. Capitol of Texas Highway, Austin, TX 78759, USA ABSTRACT

Beyond 40nm lithography node, mask topograpy is important in litho process. The rigorous EMF simulation should be applied but cost huge time. In this work, we compared experiment data with aerial images of thin and thick mask models to find patterns which are sensitive to mask topological effects and need rigorous EMF simulations. Furthur more, full physical and simplified lumped (LPM) resist models were calibrated for both 2D and 3D mask models. The accuracy of CD prediction and run-time are listed to gauge the most efficient simulation. Although a full physical resist model mimics the behavior of a resist material with rigor, the required iterative calculations can result in an excessive execution time penalty, even when simulating a simple pattern. Simplified resist models provide a compromise between computational speed and accuracy. The most efficient simulation approach (i.e. accurate prediction of wafer results with minimum execution time) will have an important position in mask 3D simulation. Keywords: EMF, 3D mask, Mask topography, Lumped parameter resist model, Full physical calibrated resist model

1. INTRODUCTION In ArF immersion process where mask pattern pitch (3X and 2X nodes) is many times smaller than exposure wavelength where strong RET and high NA are required. The light diffraction can not be correctly predicted by the Kirchhoff approximation mask model (or thin mask model) – as most frequently used in many imaging simulations today. Precise and accurate forecasting of the wafer pattern requires rigorous electromagnetic field analysis (EMF or 3D mask mode) which fully considered mask topography effects [1]. Many studies have indicated significant differences in patterning prediction between Kirchhoff approximations and 3D mask models[2][3][4]. Besides the difference of aerial image, ArF resist kinetics also play an important role which impacts the real image

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7640 76401S-1 Downloaded from SPIE Digital Library on 04 Mar 2010 to 192.146.1.254. Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

obtained on the wafer. However, 3D mask model is well-known for longer execution time and also consumes large computing resources [4], even for small mask areas of several microns. In product development stage, it’s much predicted accuracy and time-concerned to cost and market. There is another choice, simplified resist model, which is generally called LPM model (Lumped-Parameters Model) and may provide a compromise between computational speed and accuracy. In this paper, we quantify the CD bias between experiments and aerial image simulations across a range of 40nm node flash memory patterns. The difference will be used to gauge the importance of using rigorous EMF model. We also calibrate both the full physical and simplified resist models for 2D and 3D mask simulations. The comparison of CD accuracy and running time will be used to gauge the importance of using any resist model.

2. 2D & 3D MASK AERIAL IMAGE SIMULATION First, we focus on some well-known typical features of flash product beyond 40nm node to figure out what kind of feature is sensitive to mask topological effects. For 1D patterns, select-gate features are studied, and for 2D patterns, landing pad and cut line features are studied (Fig. 1). WL area SG

9 10 11 12

L2 L1

(a)

L2 L3

(b)

(c)

Figure 1 : Typical features of memory, (a)1D features : Select-gate area, (b)2D features : landing pad area, (c) 2D features : cut line.

In first part, we observe pure optical simulation accuracy of select-gate area design 1. WL1 to WL12 are chosen to monitor the accuracy because these features are close to SG features which may suffer much proximity effect caused by strong variation of pattern deployment. △CD is defined with ADI CD difference between simulation and experimental data. In fig. 2(a), pure optical aerial image simulation is done with Kirchhoff approximation (2D mask) and EMF mask (3D mask) compared to experimental data with commercial PR A. It’s obviously that ADI CD bias of EMF mask is much better than of Kirchhoff approximation, especially WL1 to WL6 CD bias which are closer to SG feature with much optical proximity effect suffered. The maximum. ADI CD bias is only about 1.2nm of pure optical behavior of EMF mask. However, it is quite process related. In fig. 2(b), experimental ADI CDs of two different PR are compared to simulation results of EMF mask. The maximum. ADI CD bias is increased to 5.6nm with commercial PR B. It implies that litho process change may induce worse accuracy by different PR parameters. Only aerial image with EMF mask

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7640 76401S-2 Downloaded from SPIE Digital Library on 04 Mar 2010 to 192.146.1.254. Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

TOK commercial PR A

10 9

Kirchhoff (2D mask) EMF (3D mask)

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

10 △ CD (Sim. CD - wafer CD) (nm)

△ CD (Sim. CD - wafer CD) (nm)

simulation is surely enough. Different calibrated PR models of commercial PR A will be discussed in following sections. commercial PR A commercial PR B

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: △CD of aerial image simulation result benchmark with experimental data of SG features : (a)PR A ADI CD errors with 2D mask Kirchhoff approximation and with 3D EMF mask, (b) PR A and PR B CD errors with 3D EMF mask.

In Fig. 3, L1, L2, and L3 of landing pad features through different focus with 2D mask Kirchhoff approximation and with 3D EMF mask are observed. In Fig. 3(a), it’s also obvious that with 3D EMF mask the simulation compensation is

better than with 2D Kirchhoff approximation, and the pure optical model simulation difference of two mask approaches is shown in Fig. 3(b). The difference range is from 1.4nm to 2.6nm, which is compensated by 3D EMF mask simulation. Compared to select-gate features, which the simulation difference of 2D and 3D mask is large as 8nm in WL1, the simulation difference of landing pad seems acceptable due to dense structure. Though it indeed a good way to adopt 3D EMF mask for landing pad feature to get more accuracy, it also takes a huge time difference to gain.

Defocus -0.03um Best Focus Defocus +0.03um

3D EMF mask

5 4 3 2 1 0 2D L1

2D L2

2D L3

3D L1

3D L2

3D L3

2D mask & 3D mask simulation bias Simulation difference (3D EMF - 2D Kirchhoff) (nm)

△ CD (Sim. CD - wafer CD) (nm)

Landing pad ADI CD with simulation bias

2D Kirchhoff approximation

3.0

Defocus -0.06um Defocus -0.03um Best Focus Defocus +0.03um Defocus +0.06um

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 L1

(a)

(b)

Figure 3: △CD of aerial image simulation result benchmark with experimental data of landing pad features : (a)PR A ADI CD errors with 2D mask Kirchhoff approximation and with 3D EMF mask through focus, (b) pure optical model simulation difference of 2D mask Kirchhoff approximation and 3D EMF mask through focus

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7640 76401S-3 Downloaded from SPIE Digital Library on 04 Mar 2010 to 192.146.1.254. Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

In Fig. 4, L1, L2, and L3 of cut-line features through different focus with 2D mask Kirchhoff approximation and with 3D EMF mask are observed. In Fig. 4(a), There is no obvious difference between with 3D EMF mask and 2D Kirchhoff

approximation, and the pure optical model simulation difference of two mask approaches is shown in Fig. 4(b). The difference range is from 0.4nm to 2.4nm, which is compensated by 3D EMF mask simulation. Compared to select-gate features, which the simulation difference of 2D and 3D mask is large as 8nm in WL1, the simulation difference of cut-line feature seems acceptable due to dense structure.

â&#x2013;ł CD (Sim. CD - wafer CD) (nm)

2D Kirchhoff approximation

3D EMF mask

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2D L1

2D L2

2D L3

3D L1

3D L2

3D L3

Cut-line 2D mask & 3D mask simulation bias 3.0 Simulation difference (3D EMF - 2D Kirchhoff) (nm)

Defocus -0.06um Best Focus Defocus +0.06um

Cut line ADI CD with simulation bias

Defocus -0.06um Best Focus Defocus +0.06um

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 L1

(a)

(b)

Figure 4: â&#x2013;łCD of aerial image simulation result benchmark with experimental data of cut-line features : (a)PR A ADI CD errors with 2D mask Kirchhoff approximation and with 3D EMF mask through focus, (b) pure optical model simulation difference of 2D mask Kirchhoff approximation and 3D EMF mask through focus

3. DATA COLLECTION AND PR CALIBRATION

3.1 Evaluating goodness of fit with the root mean square error Model calibration is performed by minimizing the RMS error between simulation and actual data, yielding a set of kinetic parameters for each modeled resist. The goodness of model fit is estimated by the standard deviation of the error between the data and predictions [5]:

RMSE is the weighted root mean square of the error associated with the second moment about the mean. The weighting function wi is calculated from the statistics of repeat trials.

3.2 Feature selection and data collection The physically-rigorous resist model and LPM model are calibrated using CDSEM S9380 metrology measurements from wafers processed above. The dataset collected for calibration consisted of 5 focus exposure matrices, including

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7640 76401S-4 Downloaded from SPIE Digital Library on 04 Mar 2010 to 192.146.1.254. Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

140nm pitch with line width 70nm and space width 70nm; 180nm pitch with line width 80nm; and 600nm pitch with line width 100nm and space 100nm. The line sizes on the mask were 67 nm, 70 nm and 73nm. Each F-E matrix was measured on 4 duplicate wafers, so that an estimation of process variability could be made. The process conditions for the calibration data: ▪ Wavelength: 193 nm ▪ Topcoat: 30nm OC-301 ▪ Resist: 110 nm commercial ArF PR A ▪ Process: 110°/60s PRE, 110°/60s PEB, 72s development ▪ BARC: NISSAN NCA41074 ▪ Mask: 6% attenuated PSM ▪ Exposure: 1.30 NA, Annular, 0.9/0.6

3.3 Calibration of rigorous resist model and LPM model In this work, we calibrated four models by accounting for two different mask characterization – one with 2D mask (Kirchhoff approximation) and one with 3D EMF mask (FDTD – Finite Difference Time Domain). These models are calibrated by minimizing the RMS error. After calibration, the quality of the match can be evaluated by inspection of the RMS error.

Total RMS (nm)

Max. RMS (nm)

Max. RMS features

Rigorous Resist Model (Kirchhoff )

2.2

3.8

100nm space / 600nm pitch

LPM Model (Kirchhoff )

2.2

3.8

100nm space / 600nm pitch

Rigorous Resist Model (EMF mask)

2.6

4.9

80nm line / 180nm pitch

LPM Model (EMF mask)

2.6

5.4

100nm space / 600nm pitch

Table 1: Calibration fitting result : Summary table of total RMS and Max. RMS features.

Table 1 summarizes the comparison amongst four different models and Table 2 summarizes calibration results for all the features and shows calibration fit results for all the features used for calibration. Fig. 5 shows max. RMS error matching features of each model with experimental and simulation data. With calibrated PR qualification, cross-section images of experiment and simulation show good compatible result in fig. 6. Simulated PR profiles of rigorous resist models show good matching to empirical wafer profiles, especially profiles with 3D EMF mask get compatible top rounding and PR footing. With LPM model, there is much difference from empirical wafer profiles, which means insufficient physical parameters to describe the detail reactions and development phenomenon during wafer process. In

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7640 76401S-5 Downloaded from SPIE Digital Library on 04 Mar 2010 to 192.146.1.254. Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

this study, we focused on ADI CD matching, which is mainly determined by top view CDSEM image, and the longitudinal PR profile is not our first concern. LPM model with simplified physical parameters can be accepted.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Table 2 : Calibration fitting result among test features, rigorous resist model with Kirchhoff approximation(a), LPM model with Kirchhoff approximation(b), rigorous resist model with EMF mask(c), LPM model with EMF mask(d).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7640 76401S-6 Downloaded from SPIE Digital Library on 04 Mar 2010 to 192.146.1.254. Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

Figure 5 : Max. RMS error matching features of each model with experimental(points) and simulation(lines) data. Rigorous resist model (Kirchhoff) with 100nm space / 600nm pitch(a), LPM model (Kirchhoff) with 100nm space / 600nm pitch (b), rigorous resist model (EMF mask) with 80nm space / 180nm pitch (c), LPM model (EMF mask) with 100nm space / 600nm pitch (d).

70L / 140P

100L / 600P (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Figure 6 : Comparison of experimental cross-section image and simulation cross-section image for different test features. Experimental wafer cross-section profile(a), rigorous resist model with Kirchhoff approximation(b), LPM model with Kirchhoff approximation(c), rigorous resist model with EMF mask(d), LPM model with EMF mask(e).

4. COMPARISON WITH REAL DEVICE EMPIRICAL RESULT

4.1 2D Kirchhoff approximation mask with PR full physical model and lumped model simulation We generate full physical model and simplified lumped model to compensate the model accuracy. Fig. 7 shows 42nm to 100nm proximity features fitting results of LPM model and full physical model. For LPM model, RMS is 4.61nm, and for FPM model, RMS is 3.42nm. FPM shows better fitting result than LPM does.

RMS = 4.61nm with LPM model

RMS = 3.42nm with FPM model

(a)

(b)

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7640 76401S-7 Downloaded from SPIE Digital Library on 04 Mar 2010 to 192.146.1.254. Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

Figure 7 : Proximity features fitting result by 2D Kirchhoff approximation simulation (a) LPM model (b) Full physical model

In fig. 8, we still choose select-gate design 1&2 WL1 to WL12 to monitor model accuracy. In design 1, the total △ CD is well compensated by full physical PR model, which including more details of PR parameters to illustrate litho behavior. Especially △CDs of WL1 to WL6, which are closer to SG feature with much optical proximity effect suffered, are also well compensated. By simplified LPM model, in design1, even the most critical pattern WL1 is well compensated, but △CDs of WL2 to WL9 become worse than full physical model. From Table 1 shown, Kirchhoff LPM model is well generated with total RMS only 2.2nm, which is same as full physical model dose. But in-sufficient PR descriptions of parameters will cause wrong result with total ADI CD fitting, even in some critical patterns the fitting result is good. In design 2, full physical model is also better compensated than simplified LPM model, but the tendency is not so obvious as design 1 showed. It may be caused by measurement error or more test patterns and parameters need to be considered during PR calibration progress.

Kirchhoff approximation (2D mask) simulation ADI CD bias

LPM model

Kirchhoff approximation (2D mask) simulation ADI CD bias

Full physical model

△ CD (Sim. CD - wafer CD) (nm)

LPM model

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

(a) select-gate design 1

(b) select-gate design 2

Figure 8 : △CD of Kirchhoff approximation simulation result benchmark with experimental data of SG features (LPM model and full physical model) : (a) select-gate design 1, (b)select-gate design 2.

4.2 3D EMF mask with PR full physical model and lumped model simulation In this section, in order to verify 3D EMF mask distribution to simulation accuracy, we also generate full physical model and simplified lumped model with 3D EMF mask calibration. Select-gate design 2 is applied to verify the difference between these two models. Fig. 9 shows 42nm to 100nm proximity features fitting results of LPM model and full physical model. For LPM model, RMS is 4.92nm, and for FPM model, RMS is 4.17nm. FPM shows better fitting result than LPM does.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7640 76401S-8 Downloaded from SPIE Digital Library on 04 Mar 2010 to 192.146.1.254. Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

RMS = 4.92nm with LPM model

RMS = 4.17nm with FPM model

(a)

(b)

Figure 9 : Proximity features fitting result by 3D EMF mask simulation (a) LPM model (b) Full physical model

In Fig. 10(a), it shows that with full physical model gets better compensation than with simplified LPM model. But notice that both are time consuming compared to 2D Kirchhoff approximation simulation. In device development early stage, accuracy is the most important, but also time to market efficiency is needed to be concerned. Depends on user’s host equipment, Either 3D EMF mask with LPM model or with full physical model is chosen to provide a better compensation in simulation accuracy and running time. In Fig. 10(b), full physical models with 2D Kirchhoff approximation and 3D EMF mask are compared. Result shows better fitting result with 3D EMF mask, but also it’s time-consuming both in calibration and simulation stage.

EMF mask (3D FDTD) simulation ADI CD bias

Full physical model simulation ADI CD bias

LPM model

Kirchhoff (2D mask)

Full physical model

EMF (3D mask) 7

△ CD (Sim. CD - wafer CD) (nm)

6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Figure 10 : (a) △CD of 3D EMF mask simulation result benchmark with experimental data of SG features (LPM model and full physical model), (b) △CD of full physical model simulation result benchmark with experimental data of SG features (2D Kirchhoff approximation and 3D EMF mask).

4.3 Time consuming benchmark In Table 3, we compute the running time of single resist simulation of 2D Kirchhoff approximation and 3D EMF mask on 1D and 2D patterns. Even for a standard line-end pattern, single aerial image (AI) simulation of 3D EMF mask

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7640 76401S-9 Downloaded from SPIE Digital Library on 04 Mar 2010 to 192.146.1.254. Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

model costs half hour which is tens of run-time of 2D Kirchhoff mask model. In 2D Kirchhoff approximation model, LPM model saves 80%~90% run-time compared to FPM model; In 3D EMF mask model, LPM model saves 6%~10% run-time compared to FPM model. Combining with the CD accuracy, LPM can be a candidate if 3D EMF mask model is needed.

2D_AI

2D_LPM 2D_FPM

3D_AI

3D_LPM 3D_FPM

Dense L/S (1D)

12 s

Select-gate (1D)

16s

92s

96s

106 s

Dense Lineend (2D)

16s

56s

6m46s

38m8s

Landing pad (2D)

30s

1m58s

38m34s 44m56s

4m26s >2hours >2hours >2hours

Table 3: Running time summary table of different models with 1D and 2D test patterns

5. CONCLUSION Three typical features of flash memory are examined by 2D Kirchhoff approximation and 3D EMF mask optical models. Select-gate patterns is the most sensitive to mask topological effects due to it’s various pitch environment. Four different PR models with LPM and full physical by Kirchhoff approximation and 3D EMF mask calibrated are observed. All these models are calibrated well by test features and total RMS is from 2.2nm to 2.6nm. 3D EMF mask application significantly improves the simulation accuracy of select-gate pattern beyond 40nm, especially critical patterns which suffer much optical proximity effect. For LPM model and full physical model application, definitely full physical model provides more accurate simulation result than LPM model due to more parameters are involved during calibration progress, but full physical model is time-consuming both in calibration and simulation stage. More precise parameters in LPM model calibration will provide compatible simulation result to full physical model, and it would be a compensation solution between simulation accuracy and simulation time.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to thanks KLA-Tencor lithography teams for their contributions to this paper. PROLITH is a trademark of KLA-Tencor.

REFERENCES 1.

A. Erdmann, ”Mask modeling in the low k1 and ultrahigh NA regime: phase and polarization effects” Proc. of SPIE Vol. 5835, pp.69-81(2005).

M. Saied, F. Foussadier, et. al., “Three-dimensional mask effects and source polarization impact on OPC model

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7640 76401S-10 Downloaded from SPIE Digital Library on 04 Mar 2010 to 192.146.1.254. Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

accuracy and process window” Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6520 (2007). 3.

K. Sato, M. Itoh, T. Sato, “Mask 3D effect on 45-nm imaging using attenuated PSM” Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6520 (2007).

Peter D. Bisschop, T. Muelders, et. al., “Impact of mask three-dimensional effects on resist-model calibration”, JM3 letters Vol. 8(3), Jul.-Sep. 2009.

P. Bevington, et. al., “Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences” McGraw-Hill, 2003.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7640 76401S-11 Downloaded from SPIE Digital Library on 04 Mar 2010 to 192.146.1.254. Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms