Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:02:42.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Role of Process Choices in Reliability Fail Modes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Robert M. Geffken*
Affiliation:
IBM Microelectronics Division, Essex Junction, VT 05452
Get access

Extract

Projections on density, performance and cost attributes of a new technology generation are relatively easy to accomplish. However, defining the reliability attributes is more problematic, particularly if the technology contains many new process elements or tools. The choices made by a development team for processes, tools, process sequences and product-layout rules often determine the process defect reliability fail modes of a technology. These process defects define the reliability level of products rather than classic reliability fail mechanisms such as electromigration, stress migration and corrosion. As such, development teams and their reliability counterparts need to focus on potential sources of process-defect reliability fail modes and their control.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

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 Logan, J.S., IBM J. of Res. and Dev., 14 (2), 172–75 (1970).Google Scholar
2 Ailing, E. and Stauffer, C., SPIE Advances in Resist Technology and Processing II, 539, 194 (1985).Google Scholar
3 MacDonald, S.A., Miller, R.D. and Willson, C.G., Kodak Microelectronics Seminar, Interface '83, 114.Google Scholar
4 Motorola Inc., Design for Manufacturability: Eng 123, Motorola Training and Education Center, Motorola Inc., Schaumburg, IL (1986).Google Scholar
5 Geffken, R.M., IEDM Tech Digest, 542, 1983.Google Scholar
6 Patrick, W., Guthrie, W., Standley, C. and Schiable, P., J. Electrochem. Soc., 138(6), 1778–84, 1991.Google Scholar
7 Pennington, S. and Luce, S., Proc. of 9th Int. VMIC, 168–72, 1992 Google Scholar
8 Kaufman, F., Thompson, D., Broadie, R., Jaso, M., Guthrie, W., Pearson, D. and Small, M., J. Electrochem. Soc., 138(11), 3460–65, 1991.Google Scholar