In this article I will be discussing why the growth in MEMS development is lagging the growth that was witnessed for IC development in many respects – but highlighting that there are valuable lessons available to accelerate future growth too. Both for design and manufacture there are non-trivial challenges that continue to hinder the growth of this technology in the way IC technology developed. The emergence of Fabless MEMS design houses as a successful model is only just starting to expand. The promise of successfully mimicking Fabless Chip design houses as a functioning corporate model, has not happened as expected. Fabless growth is limited by many factors such as an absence of standardisation, a diverse range of foundry capabilities, and also that MEMS behavioural modelling is still the poor cousin of IC modelling. Independent MEMS foundries are also struggling to mimic the growth seen by their IC brethren. The lack of standardisation and the variety of FAB processes required to support a broad spectrum of MEMS designs, continues to be a hindrance. Routine volume based profits available from a dial-up/high yield/integrated process are proving elusive. Every MEMS Foundry is offering a different toolset and process book, and yields/costs can still be variable. Because the range of applications is so diverse, it is difficult to streamline or standardise the manufacturing process for clients supporting different markets. There are no ‘off the shelf’ processes that can be equally applied to devices as varied as a microphone and a gyroscope, and the old adage of ‘1 process/1 product’ is proving to be difficult to overcome. This situation is further complicated by the introduction...
IP integration can be a shortcut to market if effectively executed, but has many pitfalls for the unwary. Nano-Surgery as a fast remedial option provides an extra level of security to designers using acquired IP for new products. Our invited presentation titled ‘When Integration Goes Wrong – your Nano-Surgery Options’ was given at the recent NMI meeting at Imagination Technologies in Kings...
Our latest newsletter covers: Accelerate your MEMS Development with FIB Structural Edit and Analysis Direct ‘Structural Edit’ of fabricated structures Page3d ‘exact site’ Structural Analysis Structural Prototyping Read our testimonials on LinkedIn Download it here – E-Newsletter – Autumn...
In this short piece I’m linking Semi Design groups to an increasingly important discussion in the Semi Failure Analysis group. Here’s the link Why? Because materials decisions made about bonding and packaging are not just downstream from the design process, they have important effects on how a Design cycle can be shortened by facilitating – or inhibiting – verification, modification and test. As a Failure Analyst the reasons for getting into packages while leaving the devices functional is obvious (to understand problems) and is an important step as you can see from the active discussion linked here. But as a FIB-Chip Design-Nano Surgeon supporting design teams with circuit edit, I also need routine access to functional opened devices. Using FIB Nano-Surgery in the Design Verification process is quite commonplace, either to confirm metal fixes before implementing layout changes, or getting 1st Silicon through test and starting applications board testing. So the link between how you correct a design flaw and open a package, is increasingly important for shortening design times. The move from Gold to Copper bond wires shaves a finite fraction from the cost of bonding a device, but also presents an additional challenge for opening up these packages. The discussion here shows many different approaches being tried as people try to adapt the Gold or Aluminium compatible ‘opening’ processes and existing hardware, to handle Copper (instead of instantly dissolving it). Decap tool vendors provide valuable insight with information about their latest Copper specific solutions. The danger is that the unpredictable and sometimes involved process of Design Verification and specifically FIB nano-surgery, may not have been fully factored in to that cost/material decision along...
In this article I discuss some interesting developments in the area of FIB technology, and its use for nano-fabrication. In this case the production of of X-ray Fresnel Zone Plates with some surprising new characteristics. These results were published recently in the journal ‘Optics Express’ and so maybe weren’t very visible via the normal Nano-fabrication, Lithography or FIB technology channels. (and yes I am a co-author). Ion beam lithography for Fresnel zone plates in X-ray microscopy – Optics Express, Vol. 21 Issue 10, pp.11747-11756 (2013) This paper is interesting for 2 main reasons. The first is how FIB technology can benefit, by moving from an analytical SEM platform (FIB-SEM), to an Electron Beam Lithography architecture more suited to ultra-fine nano-patterning. The second reason is that this new precision has been successfully employed in advancing our understanding of X-ray optics, in this case, the structure of Fresnel Zone Plates and its effects. What’s new for FIB heads? Well this example shows a high precision, fully automated, large pattern FIB milling operation, being used to directly fabricate a working Fresnel Zone Plate lens. This was done over a extended period (16 hrs) and within a tiny total cumulative positional error budget (total of 20nm’s) – far beyond conventional instrument capabilities. Also FZP lens functionality relies absolutely on the total pattern precision across the full write field (100x100microns). In this case this had to be accurate down to <5 nanometers (beyond the deflection precision and stability of a conventional microscope). The additional requirements of using a small Gallium beam size with a ‘low tails’ profile, combined with constant beam ‘circularity’ under high deflection, and current stability over long periods are also of particular...
Apparently the only two things that you should never try are folk music and incest, so blogging must surely be in the other column. Well here goes…. I’m a first generation pure FIB technologist – in that my first microscope was a Focussed Ion Beam instrument and I only learned how to use an SEM and other techniques later on. The immediacy and interactive nano-surgery capabilities of the technology, captured my interest on day one, and I’m as hooked now as I was then. Since 1992 I have been lucky enough to work for Rutherford Appleton, FEI Company (twice)- now Thermo, Micrion Corporation (now FEI), Raith GmbH and now NanoScope Services. I’ve helped develop many of the main aspects of how this technology is employed – from writing the first published FEI TEM sample prep protocol, and developing new sample holders for the 611 and FIB 800, through 3D gun-shot residue and forensic analysis and AFM tip customisation, and leading the applications initiative for using Cryo-DualBeam within the Life-Sciences. The latest major project was developing and rolling out an entirely new FIB technique for truly automated 3D nano-fabrication using ultra fine Ga+ beams now called IBL or Ion Beam Lithography for Raith GmbH. I have become co-author on over 100 publications for this application alone. ( I don’t have time to write papers myself). FIB is cool, and everyday we get to do cool new stuff for scientists and engineers from across the Nanotech spectrum. From Circuit Edit to Solid State Nanopores and frozen Fibroblast sectioning, from VCSELs and OLED’s to GSR and FZP’s, FIB is enabling us to explore...
Recent Comments