Eun-Jin Kim, GukJin Kim, Seong-Sue Kim, Han-Ku Cho, Jinho Ahn**, Ilsin An, and Hye-Keun Oh

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Eun-Jin Kim, GukJin Kim, Seong-Sue Kim*, Han-Ku Cho*, Jinho Ahn**, Ilsin An, and Hye-Keun Oh"

Gerald Hubbard
5 years ago
Views:

Department of Applied Physics, Hanyang University, Korea *Samsung

1 Eun-Jin Kim, GukJin Kim, Seong-Sue Kim*, Han-Ku Cho*, Jinho Ahn**, Ilsin An, and Hye-Keun Oh Lithography Lab. Department of Applied Physics, Hanyang University, Korea *Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. Korea **Department of Material Science and Engineering, Hanyang University, Korea

2 1. Motivation 2. Simulation Condition 3. Simulation Results 1) Illumination Condition 2) Incident Angle 3) Shadow Effect 4) Flare 4. Conclusions

Over the years, extreme ultra-violet lithography (EUVL) has made a lot of progress. EUV is believed to be #1 candidate for the patterning of 22 nm node and below.

3 Over the years, extreme ultra-violet lithography (EUVL) has made a lot of progress. EUV is believed to be #1 candidate for the patterning of 22 nm node and below. Strong OAI with higher 8 o oblique incidence might be needed on 16 nm node. More shadow effect. This shadow effect will decrease the contrast of the aerial image, and resulting worse line width control. We studied some critical parameters that could determine the EUV process for 16 nm node with 22 nm node comparison. 21 International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS)

4 Exposure Condition Exposure Wavelength (nm) NA Varied 13.5 nm.25 (22 nm),.32 (16 nm) Al 2 O 3 TaN Material Condition Reduction 4 X Incident angle 5, 6, 7, 8 Multilayer Substrate Material Thickness (nm) n k Multilayer (Mo/Si) Silicon Mo Capping Layer Ru Absorber TaN Al 2 O Refractive Index Dill A (1/μm) Dill B (1/μm) Dill C (cm 2 /mj) EUV-2D

5 Illumination Condition

6 Amplitude distribution at pupil plane for 16 nm patterns Circle Annular Dipole (σ =.8).25 NA.32 NA

7 16 nm aerial images for different illuminations Intensity Circle Annular Dipole Distance (nm)

8 16 nm aerial images for different NA (Various illumination with same.8 σ)

9 On-axis σ on 16 nm patterns.3.25 Intensity Distance (nm)

10 Annular illumination on 16 nm patterns.3.25 Intensity _.2.2_.3.3_.4.4_.5.5_.6.6_.7.7_.8.8_ Distance (nm)

Dipole illumination on 16 nm patterns.4.35 Intensity.3.25.2.15.1.5.1_.

11 Dipole illumination on 16 nm patterns.4.35 Intensity _.2.1_.3.1_.4.1_.5.1_.6.1_.7.1_.8.1_ Distance (nm)

12 Contrast with different illumination on 16 nm pattern Contrast (%) Circle Annular Dipole Coherence (σ)

13 Incident Angle

2.15.1.5 (b) 16 nm node 5 degree 6 degree 7

14 Influence of incident angle for circular illumination (a) 22 nm node Intensity (b) 16 nm node 5 degree 6 degree 7 degree 8 degree Distance (nm)

Influence of incident angle for annular illumination (a) 22 nm node Intensity.4.35.3.25.2.15.

15 Influence of incident angle for annular illumination (a) 22 nm node Intensity (b) 16 nm node 5 degree 6 degree 7 degree 8 degree Distance (nm)

16 Influence of incident angle for dipole illumination (a) 22 nm node Intensity (b) 16 nm node 5 degree 6 degree 7 degree 8 degree Distance (nm)

17 Shadow Effect

18 Horizontal-Vertical CD bias for annular illumination < 22 nm pattern > Coherence (σ) Pattern shape Resist profile CD(nm) CD (nm) Dose (mj/cm 2 ).4_.8.4_ H-V-Bias Horizontal vertical.4_.8.4_.6.6_ _ Horizontal-vertical (H-V) critical dimension (CD) difference with different annular illumination

19 Horizontal-Vertical CD bias for annular illumination < 16 nm pattern > Coherence (σ) Pattern shape Resist profile CD(nm) _ CD (nm) Dose (mj/cm 2 ).4_ H-V bias Horizontal Vertical.4_.8.4_.6.6_ _ Horizontal-vertical (H-V) critical dimension (CD) difference with different annular illumination

20 Flare

21 Flare dependency on 22 nm node % Flare 2% Flare.3 Side view Intensity Distance (nm) _flare 2_flare 4_flare 6_flare 8_flare Resist Profile CD (nm) Angle ( ) % Flare 6% Flare Side view CD (nm) Angle ( ) % Flare Side view CD (nm) Optimized for % Flare Angle ( ) 88.76

22 Flare dependency on 16 nm node % Flare 2% Flare.3 Side view Intensity Distance (nm) _flare 2_flare 4_flare 6_flare 8_flare Resist Profile CD (nm) Angle ( ) % Flare 6% Flare Side view CD (nm) Angle ( ) % Flare Side view CD (nm) 2.8 Optimized for % Flare Angle ( ) 86.94

23 22 nm node with EUV can be realized soon, how about 16 nm node? We studied some of the optimized EUV parameters for 16 nm node with some comparison to 22 nm node. As expected, higher NA gives better aerial image. Strong off-axis like dipole and higher σ can make better 16 nm patterns. The aerial image went worse if the incident angle is increased with higher σ of the off-axis illumination. Strong off-axis causes more shadow effect on 16 nm and shows much larger H-V bias. Less than 4 % flare is needed on 16 nm pattern, even though 8 % flare might be alright for 22 nm patterns. We need more complex optical proximity correction in EUV to make 16 nm.

The future of EUVL. Outline. by Winfried Kaiser, Udo Dinger, Peter Kuerz, Martin Lowisch, Hans-Juergen Mann, Stefan Muellender,

The future of EUVL. Outline. by Winfried Kaiser, Udo Dinger, Peter Kuerz, Martin Lowisch, Hans-Juergen Mann, Stefan Muellender, The future of EUVL by Winfried Kaiser, Udo Dinger, Peter Kuerz, Martin Lowisch, Hans-Juergen Mann, Stefan Muellender, William H. Arnold, Jos Benshop, Steven G. Hansen, Koen van Ingen-Schenau Outline Introduction