Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:55:03.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Large-Scale Electromigration Statistics for Cu Interconnects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Meike Hauschildt ,
Martin Gall  and
Richard Hernandez
Meike Hauschildt
Affiliation:
[email protected], Freescale Semiconductor Inc, Hopewell Junction, New York, United States
Martin Gall
Affiliation:
[email protected], Freescale Semiconductor Inc, Hopewell Junction, New York, United States
Richard Hernandez
Affiliation:
[email protected], Freescale Semiconductor Inc, Austin, Texas, United States
Get access

Abstract

Even after the successful introduction of Cu-based metallization, the electromigration failure risk has remained one of the important reliability concerns for advanced process technologies. The observation of strong bimodality for the electron up-flow direction in dual-inlaid Cu interconnects has added complexity, but is now widely accepted. More recently, bimodality has been reported also in down-flow electromigration, leading to very short lifetimes due to small, slit-shaped voids under vias. For a more thorough investigation of these early failure phenomena, specific test structures were designed based on the Wheatstone Bridge technique. The use of these structures enabled an increase of the tested sample size past 1.1 million, allowing a direct analysis of electromigration failure mechanisms at the single-digit ppm regime. Results indicate that down-flow electromigration exhibits bimodality at very small percentage levels, not readily identifiable with standard testing methods. The activation energy for the down-flow early failure mechanism was determined to be 0.83 ± 0.01 eV. Within the small error bounds of this large-scale statistical experiment, this value is deemed to be significantly lower than the usually reported activation energy of 0.90 eV for electromigration-induced diffusion along Cu/SiCN interfaces. Due to the advantages of the Wheatstone Bridge technique, we were also able to expand the experimental temperature range down to 150 °C, coming quite close to typical operating conditions up to 125 °C. As a result of the lowered activation energy, we conclude that the down-flow early failure mode may control the chip lifetime at operating conditions. The slit-like character of the early failure void morphology also raises concerns about the validity of the Blech-effect for this mechanism. A very small amount of Cu depletion may cause failure even before a stress gradient is established. We therefore conducted large-scale statistical experiments close to the critical current density-length product (jL)*. The results indicate that even at very small failure percentages, this critical product seems to extrapolate to about 2900 ± 400 A/cm for SiCOH-based dielectrics, close to previously determined (jL)* products of about 3000 ± 500 A/cm for the same technology node and dielectric material, acquired with single link interconnects. More detailed studies are currently ongoing to verify the extrapolation methods at small percentages. Furthermore, the scaling behavior of the early failure population was investigated.

Keywords

Cuelectromigrationkinetics
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1156: Symposium D – Materials, Processes and Reliability for Advanced Interconnects for Micro-and Nanoelectronics–2009 , 2009 , 1156-D06-06
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hu, C.-K., Rosenberg, R. Rathore, H.S. Nguyen, D.B. and Agarwala, B. Proc. IEEE Int. Interconnect Technology Conf., 267-269, (1999)Google Scholar
2 Hau-Riege, C.S., Thompson, C.V. Appl. Phys. Lett. 78 (22), 3451–3453, (2001)Google Scholar
3 Ogawa, E.T. Lee, K.-D., Blaschke, V.A. Ho, P.S. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 51 (4), 403–419, (2002)Google Scholar
4 Meyer, M.A. Herrmann, M. Langer, E. Zschech, E. Microelectronics Engineering, 64, 375–382, (2002)Google Scholar
5 Rosenberg, R. Edelstein, D.C. Hu, C.-K., Rodbell, K.P. Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci., 30, 229–262, (2000)Google Scholar
6 Hauschildt, M. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 2005 Google Scholar
7 Hauschildt, M. Gall, M. Thrasher, S. Justison, P. Michaelson, L. Hernandez, R. Kawasaki, H. and Ho, P.S. AIP Conf. Proc. of Stress Induced Phenomena in Metallization: 8th Int. Workshop, 817, 164–174, (2006)Google Scholar
8 Hauschildt, M. Gall, M. Thrasher, S. Justison, P. Michaelson, L. Hernandez, R. Kawasaki, H. and Ho, P.S. Appl. Phys. Let., 88, 211907, (2006)Google Scholar
9 Hauschildt, M. Gall, M. Thrasher, S. Justison, P. Hernandez, R. Kawasaki, H. and Ho, P.S. J. Appl. Phys, 101, 043523, (2007)Google Scholar
10 Gall, M. Hauschildt, M. Justison, P. Ramakrishna, K. Hernandez, R. Herrick, M. Michaelson, L. and Kawasaki, H., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 914, 305 (2006)Google Scholar
11 Ogawa, E.T. Lee, K.-D., Matsuhashi, H. K.-S. Ko, Justison, P.R. Ramamurthi, A.N. Bierwag, A.J. Ho, P.S. Blaschke, V.A., and Havemann, R.H. Proc. of Int. Rel. Phys. Symp., 341-349, (2001)Google Scholar
12 Gill, J. Sullivan, T. Yankee, S. Barth, H. and Glasow, A. v. Proc. Int. Rel. Phys. Symp., 298-304, (2002)Google Scholar
13 Lai, J.B. Yang, J.L. Wang, Y.P. Chang, S.H. Hwang, R.L. Huang, Y.S. and Hou, C.S. Proc. Int. Sym. VLSI Tech., Sys. and Appl., 271-274, (2001)Google Scholar
14 Li, B. Christiansen, C. Gill, J. Filippi, R. Sullivan, T. and Yashchin, E. Proc. Int. Rel. Phys. Symp., 115-122, (2006)Google Scholar
15 Lee, S.-C. and Oates, A.S. Proc. Int. Rel. Phys. Symp., 107-114, (2006)Google Scholar
16 Hauschildt, M. Gall, M. Justison, P. Hernandez, R. Herrick, M. AIP Conf. Proc. of Stress Induced Phenomena in Metallization: 9th Int. Workshop, 945, 66–81, (2007)Google Scholar
17 Gall, M. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1999 Google Scholar
18 Gall, M. Capasso, C. Jawarani, D. Hernandez, R. Kawasaki, H. and Ho, P.S. J. Appl. Phys, 90 (2), 732–740, (2001)Google Scholar
19 Lee, K.-D. and Ho, P.S. IEEE Transactions on Dev. and Mat. Rel., 4 (2), 237–245, (2004)Google Scholar
20 Tsuchiya, H. and Yokogawa, S. Microelectronics Reliability 46, no.9-11, 1415–1420, (2006)Google Scholar
21 Ogawa, E.T. McPherson, J.W. Rosal, J.A. Dickerson, K.J. Chiu, T.-C., Tsung, L.Y. Jain, M.K. Bonifield, T.D. Ondrusek, J.C. McKee, W.R. Proc. of Int. Rel. Phys. Symp., 312-321, (2002)Google Scholar
22 Blech, I.A. J. Appl. Phys. 47, 1203–1208, (1976)Google Scholar
23 Thrasher, S. Gall, M. Capasso, C. Justison, P. Hernandez, R. Nguyen, T. Kawasaki, H. AIP Conf. Proc. of Stress Induced Phenomena in Metallization: 7th Int. Workshop, 741, 165–172, (2004)Google Scholar
24 Wang, P.-C., Filippi, R.G. Gignac, L.M. Proc. IEEE International Interconnect Technology Conference, 253-265, (2001)Google Scholar
25 Lee, K.-D., Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 2003 Google Scholar
26 Christiansen, C. Li, B. J, Gill, Proc. IEEE International Interconnect Technology Conference, 114-116, (2008)Google Scholar
27 Shatzkes, M. and Lloyd, J.R. J. Appl. Phys, 59, 3890, (1986)Google Scholar
28 Lloyd, J.R. J. Appl. Phys, 69, 7601, (1991)Google Scholar
29 Lloyd, J.R. Microelectronics Reliability 47, no.9-11, 1468–1472, (2007)Google Scholar