Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Physical & Timing Verification of Subwavelength-Scale Designs using Physical Simulation Robert Pack (formerly of Cadence Berkeley Labs) Valery Axelrad, Andrei Shibkov, Victor Boksha (Sequoia Design Integration, Inc.) Judy Huckabay, Rachid Salik, Wolf Staud (Cadence Design Systems, Inc.) Ruoping Wang, Warren Grobman (Motorola Inc.) SEQUOIA Outline Introduction Problem Statement OPE Impact on Device Performance OPE and RET effects Timing Analysis Multi-partioning of critical devices Summary SEQUOIA Introduction DPI closure is key for successful <130nm designs Current state-of-art EDA tools insufficient insufficient in predicting performance insufficient in predicting yield/reliability Timing , SI, Race Conditions, Power… +/- %100 These factors are responsible for costly fabrication yield re-spins – >%30 ! . Failure Costs are high! Residual design-to-silicon distortions Design and verification must account for increased process and device physics entanglement Novel verification approach unique new adjunct to DFM and MSO flows SEQUOIA 60% Number of Silicon Spins in Current IC/ASIC Designs n=329 53% Percent of Teams Problem statement Excessive Re-spins Large % of flaws due to SI and Power Parametric and Catastrophic Yield Loss 45% 28% 30% 15% 15% 3% 0% First Silicon 2 3 4 Spins of Silicon Logical or Functional 43% Slow Path Feature Limited Reliability Issue 14% 9% Yield 7% Race Condition 6% Mixed-Signal Interface 5% Other Flaws 5% IR Drops Proximity Effects 4% Clocking 3% Power 3% 0% Device LITHOGRAHIC 5 or More Percent of Total Flaws Fixed in IC/ASIC Designs Having Two or More Silicon Spins Noise 2% Source: Collett International Research 2000 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Flaws Product Yield 100% Mitigation: OPC/PSM 90% Design Tools lack ability to capture complex physical effects 80% 70% Traditional defect-limited yield Feature-limited yield 60% 0.8 µm 0.5 µm 0.35 µm 0.25 µm 0.18 µm 0.13 µm 0.1 µm Technology Node Note: SEQUOIA Featurelimited yield assumes the feature failure rate improves by appro ximately 50% each generation Source: Kibarian/PDF Solutions & Collet “Silicon Verification” must be performed before committing a SubWavelength design to silicon. Silicon Level Verification Physical Verification Design Layout - DRC Silicon - DRC X Layout - LVS Silicon - LVS X Layout - Timing Silicon - Timing X Layout Compares silicon to layout SEQUOIA Specific Problem: Silicon-Level Verification Industry focusing on Interconnects - Contact pullback can result in high resistance OPE Impact on Device or opens Parasitics from silicon-level layout are different from those extracted from drawn layout DVt, Ileakage Performance DCp SEQUOIA Distributed Gate length Devices from siliconlevel layout have different device properties than from drawn layout. Verification of Process Proximity Effects - through physical simulation OPE affects Contactdistortion pullback can result in highperformance resistance transistor and or opens matching OPE distortion affects parasitics extraction accuracy OPE is the major deterministic source of device variability DVt, Ileakage Distributed Gate length electrical impact of image quality gate length variation line end pullback Parasitics from silicon-level layout DCp Complicates performance are different from estimation / bin sort yield those extracted from drawn layout SEQUOIA Devices from siliconlevel layout have different device properties than from drawn layout. OPE is the major deterministic source of device variability Tdelay ~ CV / I drive Tdelay ~ CaverageV / I average_ drive OPE impacts • device performance characteristics • Vth • Idsat • Ioff t Hea • Power (leakage) • Yield/Reliability Leakage/ Shorts SEQUOIA Vds Additional Complexity SEQUOIA Experimental Simulation Conditions 248nm NA=0.7 Source: Binary and OPC altPSM Pillbox; Sigma=0.6 Binary: Sigma=0.6 PS: Sigma=0.35 OPC Style: Aggressive Simulation-Based OPC PSM Style: NTI Double Exposure altPSM NOT A Motorola process Not lithographically refined or RET optimized SEQUOIA Experimental Structure 32-bit Adder scaled to 150nm 4285 MOSFETs / CMOS technology Lithography simulation performed fullstructure K-T/Finle -Prolith SEQUOIA Defocus Effect BIM – 0.1um steps BIM 0-Def 0.2-Def 0.1-Def 0.1-Def SEQUOIA 0.3-Def 0.2-Def 0.4-Def 0.3-Def 0.4-Def RET Effects BIM,BIM+OPC,PSM+OPC BIM, 0-Def BIM, 0.3-Def BIM+OPC, 0.3-Def PSM+OPC, 0.3-Def BIM, 0.4-Def BIM+OPC, 0.4-Def PSM+OPC, 0.4-Def SEQUOIA Timing Results • First Technique – (Rachid’s gate averaging) • Primarily a catastrophic Yield issue • Leakage from line end shortening not considered • Some transistors are outside of the model bounds 1.60E-09 1.40E-09 1.40E-09 SPICE Results 1.20E-09 1.20E-09 1.00E-09 1.00E-09 0 . 0 Ideal 8.00E-10 8.00E-10 0.0um psm_Defocus_1 0.1um psm_Defocus_2 6.00E-10 6.00E-10 4.00E-10 4.00E-10 2.00E-10 2.00E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.2um psm_Defocus_3 0.3um psm_Defocus_4 Net31 •BIM OPC Net27 Net28 Net29Net27 Net30Net28 Net31Net29 Net30 PSM SEQUOIA Electrical Analysis of Proximity Effects Active devices (MOSFETs) responsible for circuit variability Root cause of variability in sub130nm mosfets is MOSFET geometry (CD control) Geometry is the result of mostly deterministic effects and predictable Line-end pullback causes MOSFET leakage -> Yield Problem SEQUOIA Impact of Process Variation Process variation causes image degradation Defocus process window is important for manufacturability Shown is the aerial image of the poly layer at increasing defocus Gate length variation and line-end pullback cause MOSFET parameter variation and failure 0.2um defocus Defocus degrades image No defocus SEQUOIA Electrical Impact of Proximity Effects Proximity effects cause distortion depending on shape and environment of features Short poly segments (small mosfet W) print differently from long ones Proximity of other gates impacts gate shape and electrical performance Context of a mosfet must be considered when predicting its properties SEQUOIA 0.15um defocus 0.2um defocus Defocus degrades image MOSFET Variability and Yield Defocus causes the gate length distribution to widen and shift to shorter gates Circuit failure results from strong MOSFET parameter variation In extreme cases Source/Drain shorts (=very short gates) cause functional failure SEQUOIA MOSFET Gate Lengths MOSFET Idsat 0.1um defocus 0 defocus 0.1um defocus 0 defocus Failure Outside Process Window Failure is observed as zero-length MOSFET by the verification tool SPICE timing analysis confirms circuit failure in this case Statistical analysis of MOSFET distribution across process window can be used to predict manufacturability SEQUOIA Zero-length gates: Failures 0.2um defocus MOSFET Gate Lengths Conclusions Current state-of-art EDA design and verification tools have insufficient predictive performance capability in the Nanometer Era – Timing , SI, Race Conditions… +/- %100 These factors are also responsible in great part for costly fabrication re-spins – >%30 ! . Failure Costs are high! Residual design-to-silicon distortions are a fact of life and must be accounted for in Nanometer Era Design and verification tools must account for increased process and device physics entanglement. Verification must consider the impact of process proximity and process variation on circuit performance Continuation of historical cycle, impact however is greater now than ever before A novel verification methodology is proposed as a unique new adjunct to DFM and MSO flows to reduce costly re-spins and improve inherent design quality and manufacturability. Catch Potential Re-Spin Failures Before Mask and Silicon ! SEQUOIA Acknowledgements Thank you Chris and Ed at KLA-Tencor/Finle for RC Pack use of Prolith for ‘Gold-Standard’ confirmation and future work Thank you Vinod and Fabio at Numerical Technologies for RC Pack use of IC Workbench for confirmation and future work SEQUOIA Additional Supportive Materials SEQUOIA ‘Naive’ Simulation-based OPC Can make ‘pretty pictures’ on silicon but impact the real process window At some level of k1, the context of the circuit and the device must be considered carefully Many digital circuits are very forgiving of some levels of distortion.. but unforgiving of others Analog circuits/devices have their own special consideration Increased design-process integration care must be taken … it’s not just about making ‘pretty pictures’ on silicon Judicious and minimal usage of OPC Optimization target must be performance & Yield across Process-window. SEQUOIA Important issues for Designers, EDA, Maskmakers, lithographers, device designers, manufacturing… Entanglement of traditionally separable entities. The determination of which features are dimensionally and visually good enough must be done on the basis of the feature function and IC operational and manufacturing requirements. Visual metrics are no longer sufficient This era require new tools, new standards, new infrastructure….. For EDA…It’s not just about wire RLC and parasitics SEQUOIA Acknowledgements Thank you Chris and Ed at KLA-Tencor/Finle for RC Pack use of Prolith for ‘Gold-Standard’ confirmation and future work Thank you Vinod and Fabio at Numerical Technologies for RC Pack use of IC Workbench for confirmation and future work SEQUOIA