Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:32:09.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Triggering and Suppression of Soft Breakdown During Mercury-Probe Assessment of Thin Gate Oxide Quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

S. Evseev  and
A. Cacciato
S. Evseev
Affiliation:
Philips Semiconductors, Gerstweg 2, 6534AE Nijmegen, The Netherlands
A. Cacciato
Affiliation:
Philips Semiconductors, Gerstweg 2, 6534AE Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

The breakdown of ultra-thin gate oxide layers is investigated using fast-feedback Hg-probe measurements to perform Exponentially Ramped Current Stress (ERCS) tests. Several parameters have been varied in the ERCS test: oxide thickness (4nm, 5nm, 6nm and 7nm), capacitor area (0.12cm2 and 0.023cm2) and initial injected current (5×10−5 A and 5×10−4 A). Soft breakdown is detected only in case of oxides thinner than 5 nm. It is found that the fraction of points on the wafer on which soft breakdown occurs reduces by increasing the value of the injected current at the beginning of the ERCS test or completely disappears by decreasing the capacitor area. Consequences of current results for correct routine assessment of gate oxide integrity in microelectronic manufacturing are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 567: Symposium R – Ultrathin SiO2 and Higg-K Materials for ULSI Gate Dielectrics , 1999 , 295
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

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

REFERENCES

1 Wolters, D.R. and Schoot, J.J. Van der, Philips Journal of Research, 40, 115 (1985);Google Scholar
2 Harari, E., J. Appl. Phys. 49,2478 (1978);10.1063/1.325096Google Scholar
3 Jackson, J.C., Robinson, T., Oralkan, O., Dumin, D.J., Brown, G.A., J. Electrochem. Soc. 145, 1033 (1998);10.1149/1.1838384Google Scholar
4 Nafria, M., Sune, J., Aymerich, X., J Appl. Phys. 73, 205 (1993);10.1063/1.353884Google Scholar
5 Depas, M., Nigam, T., Heyns, M.M., IEEE Trans. Electron. Devices 43, 1499 (1996);10.1109/16.535341Google Scholar
6 Hillard, R.J., Mazur, R.G., Gruber, G.A., and , Sherbondy, Electrochemical Society Proceedings, Vol. 97–12;Google Scholar
7 Cacciato, A., Evseev, S., Vleeshouwers, S. and Rink, I., Proceedings ofSPIE, Prasad, S., Hartman, H. and Tsujde, T. edrs. (Santa Clara, California Sept.1998), pp 186–192;Google Scholar
8 Lee, Seok-Hee, Cho, Byung-Jin, Kim, Jong-Choul, and Choi, Soo-Han, Proceedings of IEDM 94, 605 (1994).Google Scholar