PROCEEDINGS OF SPIE

SPIEDigitalLibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie

New placement estimator for contact

hole printed with DSA

L. Schneider, V. Farys, E. Serret, C. Fenouillet-Beranger

L. Schneider, V. Farys, E. Serret, C. Fenouillet-Beranger, "New placement

estimator for contact hole printed with DSA," Proc. SPIE 9777, Alternative
Lithographic Technologies VIII, 97770M (22 March 2016); doi:
10.1117/12.2219015

Event: SPIE Advanced Lithography, 2016, San Jose, California, United States

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 08 Jul 2023 Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use

 New placement estimator for contact hole printed with DSA
L. Schneidera,b, V. Farysa, E. Serreta, C. Fenouillet-Berangerb
a
STMicroelectronics, 850 rue Jean Monnet. 38926 Crolles Cedex. France;
b
CEA, LETI, Minatec Campus, 17 rue des martyrs, 38054 Grenoble Cedex 9. France

ABSTRACT
Recent industrial results around directed self-assembly (DSA) of block copolymers (BCP) have demonstrated the high
potential of such technique. One of the main advantages of this method is the reduction of lithographic steps thus leading
to cost reduction. At the same time, the associated correction for mask creation must account for the introduction of this
new technique maintaining a high level of accuracy and reliability.
In order to create a Vertical Interconnect Layer (VIA) layer, graphoepitaxy DSA is the main candidate. The technique
relies on the creation of a confinement guide where the BCP can separate into distinct regions and the resulting patterns
are etched in order to obtain an ordered contact layer. The printing of the guiding pattern requires a classical lithography
and optical proximity correction (OPC) to obtain the best suited guiding pattern for a specific target. Thus it is necessary
to perform simulations of the BCP behavior in order to correctly determine contact hole placement.
However, most existing models which simulates the BCP phase segregation have a computational cost that is too high
and cannot be used to efficiently correct a full layout. In this study, we propose an original compact model that resolves
this issue.
The model is based on the calculation of the density probability of PMMA (Polymethyl Methacrylate) domain centers. It
is compared with both rigorous simulations (based on the Otha-Kawasaki model) and experiments. For this analysis, test
cases are contact shrink and contact multiplication.
The number of PMMA domains inside a structure is also discussed and an analytic formula is derived and compared to
experiments. The overall consistency of the compact model is presented.
Keywords: DSA, Placement estimator, Otha-Kawasaki,

1. INTRODUCTION

The development of a placement estimator requires a better understanding of the phenomenon at stake: it is important to
understand how the micro domains are created and their associated constraints, identifying the possible interaction
mechanism in order to find the final location domains.
Many simulations have been made to obtain a better understanding of the self-assembly of BCP into micro domains.
Simulations are obtained thanks to SCFT models [1-3] and the Otha Kawasaki model [4]. When using DSA to pattern
contact holes for VIA layer, the objective is to create a guiding pattern that has a linear behavior. This ensures that if the
guiding pattern shape is changed slightly, the positions and the number of micro-domains should not change drastically.
In this paper, we describe a linear behavior for guiding patterns in which micro-domains can be easily derived. This will
help to define the number of domains inside a guiding pattern thanks to an analytical formula. Moreover, a placement
estimator is describe for the first time.
The article is composed of 3 main sections. The first section introduces a first analytical corrections for 2D rigorous
modeling that do not take into account the possibility to have a residual layer between PMMA parts and substrates. The
second section present an analytical approach to count the number of PMMA domains inside a guiding pattern based on
few empirical observations. Finally, the last section focuses on the description of the placement estimator for PMMA
domains centers. An analysis with SEM experiments and rigorous modeling is also shown.

Alternative Lithographic Technologies VIII, edited by Christopher Bencher, Joy Y. Cheng, Proc. of SPIE
Vol. 9777, 97770M · © 2016 SPIE · CCC code: 0277-786X/16/$18 · doi: 10.1117/12.2219015

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9777 97770M-1

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 08 Jul 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 2. CORRECTION OF 2D RIGOROUS MODELING
In the case of contact shrink, after baking, there is potentially a PS residual layer between the PMMA domain and the
substrate as shown in [4, 5]. This is due to the affinity of the 2 domains with the border of the guiding pattern (both wall
and substrate). The article [4] shows a linear behavior with the geometries of the guiding pattern. This behavior will be
explained with simple geometrical means and the following sections will be used to demonstrate how it can be used to
correct 2D modeling of BCP.
2D Otha-Kawasaki model, comparison with experiments
The contact shrink consists in the creation of a guiding pattern with a radius low enough to ensure the formation of only
one PMMA domain. In this case the goal of the simulation is to predict the radius of this domain when using a 2D
model. The Otha-Kawasaki (OK) model is used [6,8] to perform the simulation. The following equation is used for the
free energy:

⎛a b c ⎞ D
E[Ψ ] = ∫ ⎜ Ψ 2 + Ψ 3 + Ψ 4 ⎟dr + ∫ ∇Ψ dr
2

Ω⎝
2 3 4 ⎠ Ω
2
To obtain the evolution of the system, the Cahn-Hilliard equation is used:
∂Ψ
= Δμ
∂t
At the boundary we consider that we have Neumann conditions, the numerical implementation is based on a 2D implicit
scheme. With a 2D configuration, the quantity of PMMA is linked to the PS quantity as their volume ratio is equal to f.
Thus, when using a 2D model on a circular guide we expect the PMMA domain radius RPMMA,2D to be proportional with
the radius of the guiding pattern RGP as described by the following equation: RPMMA,2D =√f RGP.
Figure 1 shows the evolution of the radius of a PMMA domain with the guiding pattern radius. As expected, the
behavior between RPMMA,2D and RGP is linear and the slope is equal to √f. However, the experimental values indicate that
the PMMA domain radius remains constant between 25 to 34 nm and invalidates the 2D simulations. For instance, if the
guiding pattern has a radius of 30 nm, the difference between both the simulated and experimental radius is about 2 nm.
As it will be shown, the behavior difference is ascribed to the PS residual layer between the PMMA domain and the
substrate and is the subject of the next paragraph.

12.5
12
*
11.5 y = 0.4x
11
_R2= 1 - 2D OK modeln
SEM images
"c 10.5
10
E
-°a 9.5
9
5a 8.5
8
20 25 30 35
Guiding pattern radius (nm)

Figure 1. Evolution of the PMMA domain radius with the guiding pattern radius in the case of contact shrink. Red dots
show the result obtained with the 2D OK model and the blue dots are the result extracted from SEM images.
Analytical calculation of PS residual layer and comparison with experiments
As shown in figure 2.a, when performing a 2D simulation, we supposed that the PMMA domain is a cylinder with a
constant radius along the thickness T of the guiding pattern. In Figure 2.b, we considered also that there is a PS residual
layer. To obtain the radius of the PMMA domain, in this case mentioned as the 3D case or RPMMA,3D, we used the

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9777 97770M-2

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 08 Jul 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 property that the PMMA volume is proportional to the PS volume with the ratio f as in the 2D case: VPMMA = f VPS. In the
following, we note R2D for RPMMA,2D and R3D for RPMMA,3D.

RPMMA, 2D RPMMA, 3D
RGP RGP

T T

TPS

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Guiding pattern and PMMA domain in the case of contact shrink. Comparison with (a) 2D case and (b) 3D
case.
As a consequence we obtain the following formula:

fT
R3D = RGP
T − TPS

Where TPS denotes the thickness of the PS layer. With experimental data we can check if this prediction is valid. The
data values have been extracted from [4]. In the article, different thickness T has been used along with TEM cross
section, both T and TPS were retrieved. The guiding pattern radius is about 40 nm and the obtained value has been
calculated for a range thickness T between 80 and 100 nm. The obtained radius R3D remains constant over the sample and
is equal to 26.3 ± 1.3 nm. This result shows the consistency of the formula.
Enhancement of the estimation
The previous formulas is only valid in the specific case where walls are vertical. However, guiding patterns generally
show a slope as shown in Figure 3. Assuming that the PMMA domain is still a cylinder, the following adjusted formula
is obtained:

fT
R3 D = 2
(T 2 − 3TRtop tan α + 3Rtop
2
tan 2 α )
3(T − TPS ) tan α

Rtop

Rbot
Figure 3. Guiding pattern with slopes

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9777 97770M-3

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 08 Jul 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Compared to the formula without slope the observed top radius is now 23.8 ± 0.8 nm. This result is more accurate as it is
closer to experimental values. However this prediction gives no information about the location of domain centers.

3. NUMBER OF PMMA DOMAINS INSIDE A STRUCTURE

In the previous section, it was supposed that there was only one PMMA domain inside the guiding pattern. However,
there is a critical length above which a second domain appears. The goal of this section is to explain how to obtain the
number of domains inside the structure.
1 dimensional case
One can imagine the shape of order parameter ψ in a 1D structure if the boundary are set at x = 0 and x = L. In the case
presented in Figure 4 where the PS is attracted by the boundary, one can calculate the length of a PMMA domain
assuming that we have:
i. Conservation of the fraction of PMMA and PS: f (n + 1) L B = nL A

ii. Fixed guiding pattern length: L = ( n + 1) L B + nL A

With these equation it is then possible to calculate the length of a PMMA domain:
f
LA = L
n(1 + f )

LB LA
ψ

+1
x=0 x=L

Figure 4. 1D guiding pattern and assumed final pattern.

In the previous relation, the number n of PMMA domains can be set to any natural integer. In order to obtain the number
of domains inside the guiding pattern we have to add an additional assumption: from experiment, in the case of
hexagonal BCP, the PMMA domains have a maximum domain length noted as LA,max. The length LA can thus be rewriten
as:
α f L
LA = L A,max with α=
n 1 + f L A,max

This equation states that there is a condition on the minimum number of PMMA domains inside the guide. The condition
L A ≤ L A,max requires that we have n ≥ α thus leading to the minimum number of PMMA domains:

n min = [α ] + 1

Furthermore, if we assumed the existence of a minimum PMMA domain length, LA,min, the number of PMMA domains is
limited to a maximum number nmax defined by:

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9777 97770M-4

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 08 Jul 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 f L
n max = [β ] with β=
1 + f L A,min

In Figure 5.a the PMMA length is shown with the guiding pattern length L for various value of n. The dark blue curve in
the figure represent the evolution of the curve LA(nmin). The area where the length LA drops shows the change in the
number of minimum domain inside the guiding pattern. In Figure 5.b, the minimum and maximum number of PMMA
domains is shown with the length of the guiding pattern. In the region where n min ≥ n max , the behavior of the BCP is not
linear and in the region where n min ≤ n max and it can be observed that it corresponds to a limited range of length L. This
result has to be compared with those presented in [4]: it has been shown that there is a limited range of guiding pattern
Radius that have a linear behavior.
The main default of the presented approximation is that we supposed that in the cross section direction from figure 4, the
result can be extended. In the case of a lamellar BCP, this would be the case, however when f = 0.3, this statement is not
well suited as there is a variation of L along this axis. In the following paragraph, the case of a 2 dimensional guiding
pattern is shown.

PO 4
Minimum
00I 08 09 Oti OZ 0
0
-Maximum
Z
17

9
8 at"
OI ^
ZI
VI
o
91 o 20 40 60 80 100
81
L (nm)
OZ

(a) (b)
Figure 5. 1D guiding pattern, BCP parameters: f = 0.5, LA,min = 12 nm, LA,max = 15 nm (a) Evolution of PMMA domains
length LA with the guiding pattern length L. Graphs are shown for different number of PMMA domains n. (b) Number of
PMMA domains. When nmax > nmin, the guiding pattern exhibits a stable pattern.

y =Ly LA
nx = n y = 1

Ly
LB,x-
LA nx = 1 nx = 2
ny = 2 ny = 1
LB,y x = Lx Lx

(a) (b)
Figure 6. The number of contacts inside a guiding pattern. (a) Studied shape: a rectangular guiding pattern. (b) Graph of
the length LA with the geometries of the guiding pattern.
2 dimension case
In this section, a perfect rectangular guiding pattern is used as shown in figure 6.a. Based on the figure the total surface
of A (PMMA parts) must be equal to:

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9777 97770M-5

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 08 Jul 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 S PMMA = n x n y L2A = fL x L y

The quantity nx and ny represent the number of domains along the x and the y axis. Thus, the PMMA length is given by:

fL x L y
LA =
nx n y

The evolution of LA with the geometries of the guiding pattern is shown in Figure 6.b. In the following we assumed that
the number ny of domains and the length Ly of the guiding pattern along the y axis are constant. The assumption
L A ≤ L A, max leads to a minimum number of domains nx,min which can be computed by:

fL x L y
n x , min = [α ] + 1 where α=
n y L2A,max

The same can be applied to LA,min to obtain the maximum number nx,max of domains. The evolution of the PMMA length
is reported for various values of domain numbers in Figure 7.a. The blue curve represents the evolution of the length
when n = nx,min, In figure 7.b, the minimum and maximum number of domains inside the guiding pattern is shown with
the length along the x axis. The result is identical to the 1D case: there are portions where n min ≤ n max which indicates a
linear behavior of the self-assembly.
To extend the result to any other guiding patterns as shown in Figure 8.a, we can suppose that the PMMA tends to form
perfect circles. If we note ri the radius of the PMMA domain i and using the notation of section 2, we have:
n
(T − TPS )π ∑r
i =1
i
2
= fVtotal

Where n is the number of structure inside the guiding patterns and Vtotal the volume inside the guiding pattern.

40
35 rgi,--/
I1111M/_'
4
Minimum
Maximum
30
.-. 25
:. 20
a 15
10 I///. nx 4
5

0
Minimum n I ber o
0 25 50 75 100 125 0 25 50 75 100 125

Lx (mn) Lx (mn)
(a) (b)
Figure 7. 2D case (a) Evolution of the length of the PMMA domain with Lx. (b) Minimum and maximum number of
domains inside the guiding pattern.
The statement that there is a maximum radius Rmax and a minimum radius Rmin for the PMMA domain leads to a
minimum and maximum number of domains inside the guiding pattern:
fVtotal fVtotal
n min = and n max =
π (T − TPS ) R A,max π (T − TPS ) R A,min

However these formulae do not give any information on where the domains are located. In the next section, a placement
estimator for PMMA domains centers will be presented.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9777 97770M-6

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 08 Jul 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 ∂Ω

M(u,v)

P(x,y)

(a) (b)
Figure 8. (a) Schematic view of a guiding pattern. The blue curve represents the border. (b) Represents the cost function
associated with the probability to find PMMA at a distance d.

4. PLACEMENT ESTIMATOR
In the previous section we have derived the number of PMMA domains and their locations only inside simple geometric
shapes. However, for more complex shapes, only the number of domains can be retrieved without providing any
information on the location of these domains.
As it has been shown previously PMMA domains are placed in particular locations inside the guide. Those locations can
be seen as locations where placement cost is minimal. This measurement of location cost can look like the graph shown
in figure 8.b: the absciss represents the distance between a point M inside the guiding pattern and a point P of the
boundaries. From this information it is possible to extract the probability of finding PMMA domains.
Cost function calculation
The cost is calculated over all points inside the guiding pattern and it can be seen as a potential field linked to the
probability to find a PMMA domain. The cost C at location M(u,v) is computed by:

C (u, v) = ∫ g (PM )ds(P)

∂Ω

The obtained map is illustrated in figure 9.b. The function g is chosen to minimize the sum of the distance between the
reference position (forecast by OK model) and the associated minimum location of the cost function: the Mean Square
Error (MSE) in our case is used as the parameter to minimize. In figure 9.b the cost function was g (d ) = k .sinc(ad ) and
the best obtained MSE value was 0.6 which indicates an excellent forecast on center placement. However on other
guiding patterns, when using the same cost function, the resulting MSE ranges from 1 to 8.2.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. (a) Resist contour in green obtained with an lithographic simulation. Final PMMA domains in red obtained
with an Otha-Kawasaki model. (b) Potential field based on cost function g(d) = k.sinc(a.d). The white doted line
represents the skeleton of the guiding pattern [9].

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9777 97770M-7

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 08 Jul 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 It would be possible to fit the value of k and a for each guiding pattern. However the goal is to obtain a unique couple of
parameters for each guiding pattern. Thus, it is necessary to take into account the interactions between PMMA domains
for a better prediction.
Interaction between PMMA domains

The PMMA domain centers are now considered as particles and are characterized by their location ri and velocity vi .
We assumed that 3 kinds of forces are applied to a particle:

i. Derived from the cost field: FC = −∇C

r j − ri
ii. Interaction between particles i and j: Fij = h⎛⎜ r j − ri ⎞⎟
⎝ ⎠ r −r
j i

iii. Friction force: F f = −k vi

The last force is necessary to obtain an equilibrium state. Also, it represents the kinetics of the BCP when phase
segregation occurs. A coefficient k dependent of the time factor should be used as it is more representative of the kinetics
exhibited by the OK simulation. However, we choose k as constant since the obtained result is sufficiently accurate in
our case.
In this study the function h has been taken to emulate the behavior of springs: h ( d ) = − a ( d − d 0 ) 2 and the implicit Euler
method is used to determine velocities and accelerations. In figure 10.a is shown a schematic of the interaction between
particles and the particles properties are represented in Figure 10.b.
Coefficients are choose once again to minimize the MSE over a set of test structures. Those structures are exhibited in
[9]. When using the best coefficient, he maximum MSE value over the samples drop from 8.2 to 0.7 which is an
excellent result.

Potential inside the cavity

PMMA center
PMMA center

x
0 L

Figure 10. Modelisation of dynamic domain behavior. (a) Field potential in the guiding pattern. PMMA domains are
linked thanks to an interaction term. (d) Application of the laws of Newton. Blue crosses represent domain centers.
Yellow arrows illustrate velocity vectors. Green arrows illustrate acceleration vectors.
The mechanism of the placement estimator can be resumed in 3 distinct stages:
1. Depending on the ratio f of PMMA and PS, the number of domains within the structure is calculated using
results presented in section 3.
2. Depending on the contour of a guiding pattern, the cost field C is calculated.
3. Interaction between domains are calculated thanks to the dynamic laws.
Finally, the predicted PMMA centers are obtained. The next section concerns the validation of the model with SEM
images.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9777 97770M-8

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 08 Jul 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Comparison of the placement estimator with experiments
A custom tool has been developed in order to analyze the SEM images and works as follows: both guiding pattern and
contact hole edges are retrieved thanks to an adaptive threshold, this step is shown in Figure 11.b. Then, contours are
fitted with an ellipse [10] as presented in figure 11.a and 11.b.
On a total of 1050 contact shrinks, the average center placement error is 0.9 ± 0.7 nm which is below the SEM
resolution. The placement estimator has also been tested on more complex shapes as shown in figure 10.b. However, the
average MSE thus obtained is about 2.4. This is ascribed to the fact that the SEM images are taken after the PMMA
etching step. Thus, the retrieved guiding pattern contour is not the same contour as the one seen during the BCP self-
assembly step. In the case of contact shrinks, a sizing of the contour will not change the minimum location, explaining
the accuracy of placement estimator compared to SEM images in this case.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Figure 11. (a) Original SEM image of a contact hole after PMMA removal. (b) Edge extraction of the SEM images.
Images (c) and (d) show the ellipse fitting for both guiding contour and contact hole contour. (e) Probability field inside
the guiding pattern.
Conclusion
Placement estimation for PMMA location is crucial to enable the use of DSA in a manufacturing flow. It has been shown
in [11] that in order meet yield and reliability requirements, the systematical placement error between designed VIAs and
final placement must remain under 2.5 nm.
Thus, when checking Design Rules or performing an Optical Proximity Correction (OPC), it is necessary to have a
forecast of the final VIA position. Rigorous modeling methods are precise but cannot be used on a large number of
structures as this entails a high computational cost.
In this study, we have exhibited a new placement estimator based on a few assumptions. One of these is the existence of
a minimal and maximal size for PMMA domains and also the existence of a cost function linked to the probability of
finding a PMMA domain. We have also shown the accuracy of the model for a limited set of test structures originally
presented in [9]. In the future the estimator will need to be tested over a more consistent set of test structures to enhance
the precision of the cost function.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9777 97770M-9

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 08 Jul 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 REFERENCES

[1] Yu, Bin, et al. "Confined self-assembly of cylinder-forming diblock copolymers: effects of confining
geometries." Soft Matter 7.21 (2011): 10227-10240.
[2] Shi, An-Chang, and Baohui Li. "Self-assembly of diblock copolymers under confinement." Soft Matter 9.5 (2013):
1398-1413.
[3] Iwama, Tatsuhiro, et al. "Computational studies of shape rectification in directed self-assembly." SPIE Advanced
Lithography. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2014.
[4] Fukawatase, Ken, et al. "DFM for defect-free DSA hole shrink process." SPIE Advanced Lithography. International
Society for Optics and Photonics, 2014.
[5] Iwama, Tatsuhiro, et al. "Computational studies of shape rectification in directed self-assembly." SPIE Advanced
Lithography. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2014.
[6] Ohta, Takao, and Kyozi Kawasaki. "Equilibrium morphology of block copolymer melts." Macromolecules 19.10
(1986): 2621-2632.
[7] Yoshimoto, Kenji, and Takashi Taniguchi. "Large-scale dynamics of directed self-assembly defects on chemically
pre-patterned surface." SPIE Advanced Lithography. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2013.
[8] Liu, Honghu, et al. "Dynamic transitions and pattern formations for cahn-hilliard model with long-range repulsive
interactions." arXiv preprint arXiv:1106.4004(2011).
[9] Schneider, L., et al. "Skeleton-based OPC application for DSA full chip mask correction." 31st European Mask and
Lithography Conference. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2015.
[10] Halır, Radim, and Jan Flusser. "Numerically stable direct least squares fitting of ellipses." Proc. 6th International
Conference in Central Europe on Computer Graphics and Visualization. WSCG. Vol. 98. 1998.
[11] Schneider, L., et al. "Enablement of DSA for VIA layer with a Metal SIT process flow." SPIE Advanced
Lithography. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2016.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9777 97770M-10

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 08 Jul 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use