Continue to Site

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

[SOLVED] MIMCAP Process Variation

Status
Not open for further replies.

nitishn5

Full Member level 6
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
368
Helped
92
Reputation
186
Reaction score
99
Trophy points
1,308
Location
Bangalore, India, India
Activity points
4,159
Hello Forum,

Why is the process variation of MIMCAP worse than the process variation of a MOSCAP?

The paper linked here
says that MIMCAP can show about ±15% variation over process corners.

My own experiments in the 189nm TSMC process shows the variation to be 20% for a 10pF MIMCAP amd it increases from slow to fast corners.

Why would MIMCAP have any process variation since it is only METAL and SiO2.
Shouldn't it be constant over process corners? What changes over corners to affect the MIMCAP?
 

I think this includes process (SiO2 thickness) variation over several wafer lots. The variation on the same wafer will be much lower. VT variations should be insignificant.

Corners include the process variation, of course. Here, slow is assigned to min., fast to max. variation.

Higher interlayer thicknesses and metal layer dimensions are controlled with less accuracy than gate oxide thickness and diffusion layer dimensions.
 
Last edited:
Higher interlayer thicknesses and metal layer dimensions are controlled with less accuracy than gate oxide thickness and diffusion layer dimensions.

But since the higher layers are thicker, wouldn't the thickness be easier to control especially since the processing technology for that should be quite mature by now?
Or is it like that they just do not care for its thickness like for the gate oxide since it is not as critical.
 

But since the higher layers are thicker, wouldn't the thickness be easier to control especially since the processing technology for that should be quite mature by now?

The thickness - I think: yes. But what about the dimensions? Degree of under-etching, perhaps?

Or is it like that they just do not care for its thickness like for the gate oxide since it is not as critical.

Normally, this is true. But it shouldn't be so for a process for which they offer the MIMCAP option. May be they simply didn't care about the MIMCAP matching figure and simply stated a very "secure" value. :-(

One of the 180nm processes which I had used (other fab) gave essentially better matching values for their MIMCAPs: View attachment MIM-cap_mismatch.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top