Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T15:42:11.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electromigration Voiding in Argon-Implanted Interconnects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

N. E. Meier ,
J. C. Doan ,
T. N. Marieb ,
P. A. Flinn  and
J. C. Bravman
N. E. Meier
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
J. C. Doan
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
T. N. Marieb
Affiliation:
Components Research, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, CA 95054
P. A. Flinn
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
J. C. Bravman
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
Get access

Abstract

Electromigration is a complex process consisting of the nucleation, growth, and movement of voids. While interconnect microstructure plays a major role in determining void nucleation time and location of void nucleation, recent studies have shown that this is not the only contributing factor. Thermodynamics and kinetics-based calculations by Flinn and Gleixner et al. have shown that electromigration void nucleation by vacancy condensation at both homogeneous and heterogeneous sites will not occur at a reasonable rate without a mechanism for reducing or altogether eliminating the energy barrier for nucleation. By implanting argon ions into the aluminum interconnect lines, we introduce an initial defect population (argon bubbles) of controlled size and location.

Tests were performed in a high-voltage SEM (120 keV), which enables in-situ observation of the voiding process through the passivation layer. Images taken throughout the in-situ tests were analyzed to determine void nucleation times and locations. In the argon-implanted interconnects, ten of the 15 voids that nucleated were within implanted regions. Voids nucleated in the interior of the line within the implanted regions, as well as at the passivation/sidewall interface where voids are typically seen in conventional electromigration tests. In addition, voids in implanted regions nucleated much more quickly than those in unimplanted regions. These observations support the idea of argon bubbles reducing the nucleation barrier. TEM was used to analyze the microstructure of both control and implanted interconnect lines.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 563: Symposium M – Materials Reliability in Microelectronics IX , 1999 , 97
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

1. Flinn, P.A., Mechanical Stress in VLSI Interconnections: Origins, Effects, Measurement, and Modeling, MRS Bulletin 20 (11), 70 (1995).Google Scholar
2. Gleixner, R.J., et al., Void nucleation in passivated interconnect lines: effects of site geometries, interfaces, and interface flaws, J. Mat. Res. 12, 2081 (1997).Google Scholar
3. Flinn, P.A., Lee, S., Doan, J.C., Marieb, T.N., Bravman, J.C.. and Madden, M., AIP Conf. Proc. 418, 250 (1997).Google Scholar
4. Levine, E. and Kichter, J., 22nd Annual Proc. of IEEE IRPS, 242 (1984).Google Scholar
5. Doan, J., Bravman, J.C., Flinn, P.A.. and Marieb, T.N., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 516, 83 (1998).Google Scholar
6. Kim, C. and Morris, J.W., Jr., J. Appl. Phys. 73, 4885 (1993).Google Scholar
7. Marieb, T., Flinn, P., Bravman, J.C., Gardner, D.. and Madden, M., J. Appl. Phys. 78, 1026 (1995).Google Scholar
8. Riege, S. P., Hunt, A.W.. and Prybyla, J.A., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 391, 249 (1995).Google Scholar
9. Marieb, T., Ph. Thesis, D., Stanford University, 1994.Google Scholar
10. Wada, T., Sugimoto, M.. and Ajiki, T., IEEE Trans. Reliability, 38, 565 (1989).Google Scholar
11. Abe, H., Tanabe, S., Kondo, Y.. and Ikubo, M., Jpn. Soc. of Appl. Phys. (39th Spring Meeting), 658 (1992).Google Scholar
12. Doan, J.C.,. Bravman, J.C., Flinn, P.A.. and Marieb, T.N., submitted for publication.Google Scholar
13. Doan, J.C., Ph. D. Thesis, Stanford University, 1999.Google Scholar
14. Felde, A. vom, Fink, J., Muller-Heinzerling, T., Pfluger, J., Scheerer, B., Linker, G.. and Kaletta, D., Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 922 (1984).Google Scholar
15. Heinen, D., Schroeder, H.. and Schilling, W., AIP Conf. Proc. 418, 195 (1997).Google Scholar
16. Heinen, D. and Schroeder, H., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 473, 381 (1997).Google Scholar
17. Attardo, M.J. and Rosenberg, R., J. Appl. Phys. 41, 2381 (1970).Google Scholar
18. Vaidya, S. and Sinha, A.K., Thin Solid Films, 75, 253 (1981).Google Scholar
19. Tracy, D.P., Knorr, D.B.. and Rodbell, K.P, J. Appl. Phys. 76, 2671 (1994).Google Scholar