PROJECT PROPOSAL: OPTIMIZATION OF A TUNGSTEN CVD PROCESS

Heather Brown an Br!an He""e

IEE #$%
De&e'(er #) %***
The tungsten chemical vapor deposition (WCVD) process has been used in the
semiconductor industry for many years. WCVD is primarily used to fill interconnects
such as contacts and vias. Tungsten deposition occurs according to the following
reaction:
W! " #$% W " !$ (&)
'nterconnects are needed for electrical connection of different device layers that are
separated by insulating layers. (n e)ample would be connecting two metal layers that
are separated by an o)ide layer. The tungsten fills the via or hole that lin*s the second
layer metal to the first layer metal. The ob+ective of the process is to entirely fill the via
with tungsten, otherwise the device could short when voltage is applied. 'n the CVD
process- tungsten is applied to the wafer as a planar film and then selectively removed
using chemical . mechanical polishing (C/0) so that only the plugs remain.
RECOGNITION OF AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1ecently /icrochip Technology has ac2uired a 3ovellus CVD tool for applying blan*et
tungsten layers to be used for interconnects. The vendor calibrated the system based on a
standard 3ovellus process flow. This standard flow is based on the WCVD performance
needs of the average customer and may re2uire changes for /icrochip4s process
specifications. Thus- before this CVD tool can be used in manufacturing- it is important
to identify the *ey factors for optimi5ed performance.
CHOICE OF FACTORS) LEVELS) AND RANGE
There are numerous different parameters that can be varied on a CVD tool- such as
bac*side gas flow- deposition time- process pressure- flow rates- temperature- etc. 't was
decided that the $% and W! flow rates- temperature- and via si5e have the greatest impact
on plug fill. These factors were varied at a high and a low level as shown in Table &.
The depth of the vias will be &%66 nm.
Ta(+e ,- Fa&tor Va+.e"
Factor Low High
H2 flow rate 5000 sccm 10000sccm
WF6 flow rate 100 sccm 400 sccm
Temperature 400C 445C
Via Size 0.2 m 0.4 m
1elative humidity- time of day the tool is operated- and operator are factors that will
impact performance- but are uncontrollable and will be treated as nuisance variables. (ll
other tool settings will be held constant at values suggested by 3ovellus.
SELECTION OF THE RESPONSE VARIABLE
The most important response variable that will be monitored is fill height. Conformal
tungsten fill in a contact or via- in which a uniform film thic*ness is deposited on both the
hori5ontal and vertical surfaces- is desirable since the purpose of the interconnect is to
lin* metal layers. 'f each chip on a given wafer is to operate identically- it is necessary to
have uniform plugs. Thus- a uniform layer of tungsten is needed. 'ncomplete or non7
conformal plug filling could cause a void between metal lines. ( void can then lead to
high resistance and can trap chemicals in a plug during C/0- which can result in
reliability problems.
The fill height measurements are determined by cleaving the wafer and loo*ing at plug
cross7sections using a scanning electron microscope (89/). The fill height
measurements ta*e into account the uniformity of the deposited tungsten layer in the
plug. ( visual representation of a plug cross7section and the concept of fill height are
shown in ig. &.
':;19 &: T;3:8T93 CVD 0<;: C1=88 89CT'=3(< V'9W
CHOICE OF E/PERIMENTAL DESIGN
(n optimi5ation e)periment was chosen in order to identify the *ey factors involved with
the fill height in CVD tungsten deposition. The four factors considered in the design were
$% flow- W! flow- temperature- and via si5e. 't was decided that one replicate of a full
factorial would be ran due to the limited number of wafers for the e)periment. 'f a full
factorial were ran- this would only re2uire > runs because each wafer will have both 6.% and
6.? m via si5es. 'f si)teen runs (and wafers) were performed with only one via si5e per
wafer- this could create misleading results due to the wafer7to7wafer uniformity in the film.
Table % provides the test matri) for this e)periment.
(fter running the proposed e)periment- the effects of tungsten and hydrogen flowrates-
temperature- and via si5e on fill height will be *nown. ;sing this information- a more
precise e)periment can be designed to properly optimi5e the factors found to be
influential on the response variables.
ANAL0SIS
Run Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 espo!se
1
WF6
Flowrate
(sccm)
H2
Flowrate
(sccm)
Via Size
( m)
Temperature
(C)
Fill Hei"#t
$!m%
1 500 100 0.2 400 500
1 500 100 0.4 400 &5&
2 1000 100 0.2 400 '&2
2 1000 100 0.4 400 &(0
) 500 400 0.2 400 1200
) 500 400 0.4 400 105)
4 1000 400 0.2 400 1200
4 1000 400 0.4 400 1200
5 500 100 0.2 445 0
5 500 100 0.4 445 0
6 1000 100 0.2 445 0
6 1000 100 0.4 445 0
& 500 400 0.2 445 1200
& 500 400 0.4 445 1200
( 1000 400 0.2 445 1200
( 1000 400 0.4 445 &24
Table 2: Test Matrix
Table 2: Fill Height ANOVA Summary
Factor *ffect *stimate +,-alue
.,WF6 flowrate )&) / 0.0001
0,temperature ,20(.625 0.0002
.0 16&.5 0.0011
=ne of the most important aspects of WCVD is fill height of the plug. Table % represents
the summary of the (3=V( table that was produced from running the design in Design7
9)pert. The complete (3=V( table can be found in (ppendi) (- which after being
e)amined- it was obvious that the W! flow rate and temperature were the important
factors. 'n addition- it appears that the (D interaction is important- however- it is possible
that this is due to the influence of the main effects. rom the effects estimate- it is clear
that increasing the W! flow rate has a positive effect on the fill height- where as
increasing the temperature has a negative effect. The W! flow rate has a larger effect
than temperature- and when adding the two main effects together- this gives the (D effect
estimate- which confirms that the large (D effect is most li*ely due to the main effects.
The normal probability plot of the studenti5ed residuals is shown in ig. %. (nalysis of
the figure by means of the fat pencil test shows that the data is indeed normal. There are
slight deviations from normality- but that is e)pected- so the data is normal.
igure # shows the half7normal plot where our previous conclusion that was drawn from
the (3=V( table that W! flow and temperature are the most important factors is
confirmed.
Stu1e!tize1 esi1uals
2o
rm
al
3
pro
4a
4ili
t5
Fi"ure 26 Fill Hei"#t 2ormal +lot
,2.52 ,1.56 ,0.60 0.)6 1.)2
1
5
10
20
)0
50
&0
(0
'0
'5
''
0*S782,*9+*T
+lot Fill #ie"#t
.6 WF6 flowrate
:6 H2 flowrate
C6 Via Size
06 temperature
Fi"ure )6 Fill #ei"#t Half 2ormal plot
Ha
lf
2o
rm
al
3
pro
4a
4ili
t5
;*ffect;
0.00 1(6.50 )&).00 55'.50 &46.00
0
20
40
60
&0
(0
(5
'0
'5
'&
''
.
0
.0
rom analysis of ig. ? and @- the W! flow rate effect is positive and the temperature
effect is negative- therefore to ma)imi5e fill height- W! should be run at the high level
and temperature at the low level. The temperature and W! flow rate interaction is
plotted in ig. !- which confirms that the fill height is ma)imi5ed when the temperature is
low and the W! flow rate is at the high level.
The residual vs. predicted plot is shown in ig. A. or the predicted value of 5ero the
residual is also 5ero- because 5ero represents no plug fill. The predicted value for no plug
fill is 5ero and the actual value of the residual is also 5ero. or the higher predicted
values where there is variance- it appears that the residuals are randomly distributed.
The residuals were also analy5ed against the different factor levels. igures > and B show
the residuals plotted versus high and low levels of temperature and W! flow rate. rom
these figures it was concluded that the value of the residual does not change based on the
value of temperature or W! flow rate. 8imilar plots were analy5ed for the other factors
and the same conclusion was reached- but since the other factors were not significant the
plots have not been included.
Con&+."!on"
;nfortunately- this design did not yield +ust one optimal solution for the problem of plug
fill. Two of the eight different conditions investigated gave complete fill of the 6.% and
6.? micron plugs. rom table %- runs ? and A gave optimal solutions leaving no way to
differentiate between the two different runs. Coth of these runs had W! and $% flow rate
at the high levels- but the temperature was different. The model indicated that
temperature was significant in determining fill height- however it does not appear to be
true in this case. The problem here is that there is no way to determine if deeper plugs
could have been filled. 'f the e)periment had been set up with plugs deeper than &%66
nm it would have helped to determine if the high or low temperature was better. rom
other runs it does appear that the higher temperature is better- but that may not hold for
these runs. Cut after analy5ing the data- it would ma*e sense to run the WCVD process
conditions at the low $% flow of @666 sccm- the high W! flow of ?66 sccm- and the high
temperature of ??@DC (1un A) instead of the conditions in 1un ? since running at a lower
$% flow would be more cost effective than running at a higher $% flow at a reduced
temperature.

100.00 1&5.00 250.00 )25.00 400.00
0
)10.65'
621.)1&
')1.'&6
1242.6)
.6 WF6 flowrate
Fill #ei"#t
Fi"ure 46 WF6 effect plot
400.00 411.25 422.50 4)).&5 445.00
0
)00
600
'00
1200
06 temperature
Fill #ei"#t
Fi"ure 56 Temperature effect plot
Fill #ie"#t
9 < .6 WF6 flowrate
= < 06 temperature
0, 400.000
0> 445.000
06 temperature
Fi"ure 66 7!teractio! 8rap#
Fill
#ie
"#t
.6 WF6 flowrate
100.00 1&5.00 250.00 )25.00 400.00
,1&0.42&
205.5''
5(1.625
'5&.651
1))).6(
)))
4
)
4
)
4
)
4
+re1icte1
St
u1
e!t
ize
1
e
si1
ual
s
Fi"ure &6 esi1uals -s. +re1icte1
,).00
,1.50
0.00
1.50
).00
0.00 2'0.(1 5(1.62 (&2.44 116).25
)))
4
)
4
)
4
)
4
temperature
St
u1
e!t
ize
1
e
si1
ual
s
Fi"ure (6 esi1uals -s. temperature
,).00
,1.50
0.00
1.50
).00
400 40( 415 42) 4)0 4)( 445
)))
4
)
4
)
4
)
4
WF6 flowrate
St
u1
e!t
ize
1
e
si1
ual
s
Fi"ure '6 esi1uals -s. WF6 flowrate
,).00
,1.50
0.00
1.50
).00
100 150 200 250 )00 )50 400
APPENDI/ A: Fill Height
Re"1on"e: F!++ h!e2ht
ANOVA 3or Se+e&te Fa&tor!a+ Moe+
Ana+4"!" o3 5ar!an&e ta(+e 6Part!a+ ".' o3 "7.are"8
S.' o3 Mean F
So.r&e S7.are" DF S7.are Va+.e Pro( 9 F
/odel #.#A&9"66! #&.&%?9"66! ?@.&% E 6.666&
significant
A2.226E+006 12.226E+006 89.38 < 0.0001
D6.964E+005 16.964E+005 27.96 0.0002
AD4.489E+005 14.489E+005 18.03 0.0011
1esidual%.B>B9"66@ &% %?B6?.%B
Cor Total#.!A69"66! &@
The /odel 7value of ?@.&% implies the model is significant. There is only
a 6.6&F chance that a G/odel 7ValueG this large could occur due to noise.
Values of G0rob H G less than 6.6&66 indicate model terms are significant.
'n this case (- D- (D are significant model terms.
Values greater than 6.&666 indicate the model terms are not significant.
'f there are many insignificant model terms (not counting those re2uired to support
hierarchy)- model reduction may improve your model.
8td. Dev. &@A.>& 1782uared 6.B&>!
/ean A?B.&# (d+ 1782uared 6.>B>%
C.V. %&.6A 0red 1782uared 6.>@@%
01988 @.#&#9"66@ (de2 0recision &?.A?%
The G0red 1782uaredG of 6.>@@% is in reasonable agreement with the G(d+ 1782uaredG
of 6.>B>%.
G(de2 0recisionG measures the signal to noise ratio. ( ratio greater than ? is desirable.
Iour ratio of &?.A?% indicates an ade2uate signal. This model can be used to navigate the
design space.
Coe33!&!ent Stanar ::; CI ::; CI
Fa&tor E"t!'ate DF Error Low H!2h
VIF
'ntercept A?B.&# & #B.?@ !%>.!% >!B.!#
(7W! flowrate #A#.66 & #B.?@ %@%.?B ?B#.@& &.66
D7temperature 7%6>.!# & #B.?@ 7#%B.&# 7>>.&% &.66
(D &!A.@6 & #B.?@ ?!.BB %>>.6& &.66
F!na+ E7.at!on !n Ter'" o3 Coe Fa&tor":
ill hieght J A?B.&# " #A#.66K ( 7 %6>.!#K D " &!A.@6K ( K D