You are on page 1of 30

IEE 572

Project Report
Electronic Copy
Submitted by :
Brian Benard
Navin Jeyachandran
Hari Jagannathan Balasubramanian

Recognition and statement of the Problem:

The system under consideration is shown above. In a semiconductor-manufacturing


environment, wafers have to be tested with the intention of getting repeated
measurements as a baseline of system performance, accuracy, and measurement
variability.
A series of device test structures is available for testing circuits built on wafers using 0.8micron technology. There are 3 sites measured on each wafer as shown in the figure, with
the sites in the lower left, right, lower right, center, and top sections of the wafer, with the
reference as the flat section of the wafer at the bottom. At each site specific electrical
parameters are measured and recorded. The recorded data is automatically uploaded to a
central factory server for storage after the whole wafer is tested. The normal routine is,
after a wafer is robotically loaded onto a vacuum chuck, for the operator to locate the
probe needles exactly over the first set of test structures on the first site probed. At each

site, 65 sets of test structures are available. A program automatically moves the wafers
sequentially through each of these sets, at which a pre-programmed number of electrical
tests are done and results, are measured. Then, the program automatically moves the
wafer to the second site, with no operator intervention, and the measurements are taken
on the same set of test structures. This repeats until the last site is tested, after which the
wafer is robotically removed and another wafer can be robotically loaded.
Two testers are available for this purpose. An operator is also present to conduct the tests.
Electrical parameters measured give information about the design performance,
robustness, fabrication accuracy and variability. A set of response variables, which are
called Keithley electrical parameters, is chosen that best reflect the above-enumerated
issues (in Italics). For deciding the response variables (as there are many to choose from)
people from the design department, quality assurance and the manufacturing department
are consulted.
The problem is to understand whether testers, the operators, and wafers produce
variability in results. Succinctly stated, we need to find finite source of variation in
Keithley electrical parameters. Once the experiment is conducted and analyzed, an exact
test procedure can be suggested.

Choice of factors, levels, and ranges:


1. Testers - Currently there are two Keithley Systems used for testing this factor,
therefore, has two fixed levels and is a categorical factor. The variation would be due
to differences in calibration of current sources, voltmeters, and resistor networks to
traceable standards; and noise factors such as "probe-up capacitance". For example,
the programmed value for this is treated as a system constant, at a value of 0.35 pF
(picoFarads), but could affect parameters that rely on a measurement of capacitance,
such as film thickness (one of the responses chosen). Another effect due to tester, or
perhaps operator, is the incidence of "bad " data points; meaning points where the
probe needles did not make low-resistance contact with the test structures. Three of the

responses (in varying degrees with the leakage parameter being the most sensitive)
could be potentially affected due to this source of variation. The number of these bad
data points may be added as a response variable; as these points are typically passed to
the database as an obvious outlier value; e.g. 2E21 value for data that normally falls
between 0 and 2 Volts.
2. Operators - The intention is to perform the experiment using two different operators
and see whether variability in the results can be caused if different operators perform
the test. This is a fixed factor due to small sample of trained operators for the testers.
3. Wafers - Wafers of the same type and the same technology are used for testing. These
wafers can be used as blocks while the other factors are tested randomly within this
block. The original design was intending to select a set of wafers (golden wafers) as
a fixed factor to be used in all the experimental cells, and run a typical gauge study. At
the time of this report, due to production constraints out of the control of the
experimenters, only half of the originally planned experiment had been run, and the
data was unavailable. Instead, randomly selected wafers were used to generate the
experimental data. The wafers were of the same device type and technology, run at the
same time period through the factory, and were from the same batch of starting
material.

Therefore we assume they are from the same normally distributed

population of samples, even though selected from different fabrication lots.


4. Location of test - 3 points on the wafer are tested. The observations obtained at these
points are duplicates and the mean of the observations is taken as the response
variable. This factor could have been used as a nested factor within wafer (the data is
automatically provided in this manner), but was not. Randomizing testing at all three
locations is a tedious task posing a practical difficulty. The dispersion of the data
(variance of the wafer average response) can be analyzed.

5. The variation due to a different probe card on the same tester was considered. This
might have variation independent of the tester itself, and could be confounded with a
tester effect. However, it was difficult to add as a factor for both testers, unless done
as a before/after change. The difficulty arises in the execution of the experiment,
where excessive setup time would be needed in a random order that varies the probe
card. Therefore this factor was not included.

Response Variables:
These responses were chosen as a cross-section of the different types of measurements
done in normal production testing, and of the different measurement sub-systems in the
tester The following is a list of responses that are most significant:
1. Sheet Resistance of N+ active area, ohms/square : The typical variation as a
percentage of the mean is 3%. It is subject to all of the temperature variations in the
process.
2. Sheet Resistance of first layer of metal or width 3, ohms : The typical variation as a
percentage of the mean is 2%
3. Leakage Current of capacitor with electrodes composed of the first and second metal
layers, amperes : The typical variation as a percentage of the mean is 10 to 20%. The
leakage current can be sensitive to needle contact, therefore to system or operator.
The actual measurement is in the nA (nanoampere) range, so coding or transformation
of the response may be appropriate.
4. Threshold voltage of large W/L n-channel transistor, volts : The typical variation as a
percentage of the mean is 1 to 2%.
5. Oxide thickness of dielectric between first and second metal layers, Angstroms: The
typical variation as a percentage of the mean is 3%. This response could be sensitive
to the "probe-up capacitance. It is a well-controlled process in the factory.

Choice of Design:
There were practical difficulties associated with this experiment, and the choice of design
was dictated more by the practical issues than anything else. If wafer were considered as
a factor, it would imply randomizing wafer order during the time experiment was run,
leading to excessive handling that was deemed too risky to successful completion of the
experiment.

This, in terms of the experiment, would have meant re-running all

combinations again, and also financial losses. Hence, the wafer was to be considered as a
block and the treatment combinations were supposed to be run in a randomized fashion
on a wafer.
Another possible factor that was considered was the site-location i.e. the point where
the wafer is tested. Considering it as a factor would have meant randomizing the order of
points at which the wafer is tested. This implied changing the stepper program and having
different run orders for different wafers. Such a modification, though possible, was hardly
feasible practically. A natural simplification would be considering only three points, and
making the task of randomizing easier. This aspect of the experiment was considered but
after considering the set-up of the experiment, it was decided that the observations were
actually duplicate observations. Hence the mean of the observations at these points was to
be considered as the response. The analysis of the variability of the locations, or the
variance of the response by wafer (dispersion effects) could be gained from this data.
The design suggested therefore seems tentative. Each wafer was to be a block and
combinations of tester and operator are tested on each wafer. This meant four
combinations on each wafer, and the value of a particular response variable is the mean of
the observations at the three different sites.
Hence, the experiment under consideration for this project was a general factorial
design, with two factors - operator and tester at two levels. Blocking was to be done by
the third factor wafer, and there were supposed to be five blocks.
Number of Replicates:

The number of replicates was decided using a trial an error method on Design Expert.
There are fifteen replicates, which means there are three replicates per block. This gave
us a power of 96.7% with at a significance level of 5%.
Run Order:
Std
47
48
16
18
46
33
31
1
2
32
3
17
50
34
19
49
4
35
6
21
51
5
20
36
53
23
22
39
38
24

Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Block
wafer 1
wafer 1
wafer 1
wafer 1
wafer 1
wafer 1
wafer 1
wafer 1
wafer 1
wafer 1
wafer 1
wafer 1
wafer 2
wafer 2
wafer 2
wafer 2
wafer 2
wafer 2
wafer 2
wafer 2
wafer 2
wafer 2
wafer 2
wafer 2
wafer 3
wafer 3
wafer 3
wafer 3
wafer 3
wafer 3

Performing the experiment:

Tester
t2
t2
t2
t2
t2
t1
t1
t1
t1
t1
t1
t2
t2
t1
t2
t2
t1
t1
t1
t2
t2
t1
t2
t1
t2
t2
t2
t1
t1
t2

Operator
s2
s2
s1
s1
s2
s2
s2
s1
s1
s2
s1
s1
s2
s2
s1
s2
s1
s2
s1
s1
s2
s1
s1
s2
s2
s1
s1
s2
s2
s1

Std
52
7
54
37
9
8
57
40
42
27
55
11
10
25
41
12
56
26
15
43
45
30
14
59
28
60
29
58
44
13

Run
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Block
wafer 3
wafer 3
wafer 3
wafer 3
wafer 3
wafer 3
wafer 4
wafer 4
wafer 4
wafer 4
wafer 4
wafer 4
wafer 4
wafer 4
wafer 4
wafer 4
wafer 4
wafer 4
wafer 5
wafer 5
wafer 5
wafer 5
wafer 5
wafer 5
wafer 5
wafer 5
wafer 5
wafer 5
wafer 5
wafer 5

Tester
t2
t1
t2
t1
t1
t1
t2
t1
t1
t2
t2
t1
t1
t2
t1
t1
t2
t2
t1
t1
t1
t2
t1
t2
t2
t2
t2
t2
t1
t1

Operator
s2
s1
s2
s2
s1
s1
s2
s2
s2
s1
s2
s1
s1
s1
s2
s1
s2
s1
s1
s2
s2
s1
s1
s2
s1
s2
s1
s2
s2
s1

The design that was suggested in previous project proposals was keeping wafers,
operators and testers as fixed factors. However, the experiment was run in a different
manner. This was because of various factors that affect experiments in industrial settings
like availability of time and resources, and understanding of the personnel in-charge of
the experiment. Consequently, the experimental design had to be changed in accordance
with the way the experiment was run. Wafers were made a random factor nested within
operators. The responses considered were the same. The objective was still to find the
source of variation in the electrical parameters measured. However, the experiment would
now also tell us if any variability existed in the wafer population.
The revised design is shown below:
Operator 1
W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

Operator 2
W6

W7

W8

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

W7

W8

Tester 1
Tester 2

Eight wafer levels representing the wafer population nested within operators were tested
with the two tester levels.

One replication was done with these eight levels. This

experimental design does not exactly conform to the design initially considered and
planned, but it might still be a reasonable model to use in making conclusions. The
wafers were selected randomly from the population for each cell of this revised design.
However, the conclusions cannot be taken for granted. Follow up experiments need to
be conducted to ensure that the results are the same as those predicted by this experiment;
e.g. the originally designed gauge study.

Statistical Analysis of Data:


The following represents

Rn - Sheet Resistance of N+ active area, ohms/square


Vtn - Threshold voltage of large W/L n-channel transistor, volts
Leakage - Leakage Current of capacitor with electrodes composed of the first and

second metal layers, amperes


Teos - Oxide thickness of dielectric between first and second metal layers,
Angstroms
m2snak - Sheet Resistance of first layer of metal or width 3, ohms
Statistical analyses are performed for all the five response variables considered; all plots
are included in the appendix to the report.
Resposnse 1 Rn: Sheet Resistance of N+ active area, ohms/square
ANOVA: Rn versus tester, operator, wafer
Factor
Type Levels Values
wafer(operator) random
8
1
7
tester
fixed
2
1
operator
fixed
2
1

2
8
2
2

Analysis of Variance for rn


Source
wafer(operator)
tester*operator
tester
operator
Error
Total

DF
14
1
1
1
14
31

SS
0.080143
0.000179
0.000914
0.369728
0.139901
0.590866

MS
0.005725
0.000179
0.000914
0.369728
0.009993

F
0.57
0.02
0.09
64.59

P
0.846
0.895
0.767
0.000

Source
1
2
3
4
5

Variance Error Expected Mean Square for Each Term


component term (using restricted model)
wafer(operator) -0.00213
5
(5) + 2(1)
tester*operator
5
(5) + 8Q[2]
tester
5
(5) + 16Q[3]
operator
1
(5) + 2(1) + 16Q[4]
Error
0.00999
(5)

The analysis indicates that the operator effect is a significant. Negative variance
component essentially means that the wafer to wafer variability is negligible.

Normal Probability plot, Residuals vs Order plot, and the plot of Residuals vs Predicted
values look normal. No violation of assumptions seems to have occurred here.

Resposnse 2 vtn: Threshold voltage of large W/L n-channel transistor, volts


Results for: Worksheet 2
ANOVA: vtn versus tester, operator, wafer
Factor
Type Levels Values
wafer(operator) random
8
1
7
tester
fixed
2
1
operator
fixed
2
1

2
8
2
2

Analysis of Variance for vtn


Source
wafer(operator)
tester*operator
tester
operator
Error
Total

DF
14
1
1
1
14
31

SS
0.00027835
0.00431134
0.00281563
0.00038111
0.00009497
0.00788139

MS
0.00001988
0.00431134
0.00281563
0.00038111
0.00000678

F
2.93
635.56
415.07
19.17

P
0.027
0.000
0.000
0.001

Source
1
2
3
4
5

Variance Error Expected Mean Square for Each Term


component term (using restricted model)
wafer(operator) 0.00001
5
(5) + 2(1)
tester*operator
5
(5) + 8Q[2]
tester
5
(5) + 16Q[3]
operator
1
(5) + 2(1) + 16Q[4]
Error
0.00001
(5)

The results show that tester, operator and the tester-operator interaction are significant.
The residual graphs seem normal, and no assumptions seem to have been violated. The
normality probability plot has some S-shape, but not to an alarming degree.

Response 3 Leakage:

Leakage Current of capacitor with electrodes composed of the first and second
metal layers, amperes
Results for: Worksheet 2
ANOVA: leakage versus tester, operator, wafer

Leakage Current of capacitor with electrodes composed of the first and second
metal layers, amperes
Factor
Type Levels Values
wafer(operator) random
8
1
7
tester
fixed
2
1
operator
fixed
2
1

2
8
2
2

Analysis of Variance for leak


Source
wafer(operator)
tester*operator
tester
operator
Error
Total

DF
14
1
1
1
14
31

SS
0.10781
1.41536
1.44694
0.07077
0.08301
3.12389

MS
0.00770
1.41536
1.44694
0.07077
0.00593

F
1.30
238.70
244.02
9.19

P
0.316
0.000
0.000
0.009

Source
1
2
3
4
5

Variance Error Expected Mean Square for Each Term


component term (using restricted model)
wafer(operator) 0.00089
5
(5) + 2(1)
tester*operator
5
(5) + 8Q[2]
tester
5
(5) + 16Q[3]
operator
1
(5) + 2(1) + 16Q[4]
Error
0.00593
(5)

A log transformation was done on the original readings to make the data conform to the
assumptions. The ANOVA table shows that the tester and tester-operator interaction are
significant. Wafer to wafer variability is very low as shown by the variance component.
The normal probabilty plot shows a couple of outliers; otherwise the plot passes the fat
pencil test. The other graphs show no unusual patterns.

Resposnse 4 m2snak: Sheet Resistance of first layer of metal or width 3, ohms

Results for: Worksheet 2


ANOVA: m2sn versus tester, operator, wafer
Factor
Type Levels Values
wafer(operator) random
8
1
7
tester
fixed
2
1
operator
fixed
2
1

2
8
2
2

Analysis of Variance for m2sn


Source
wafer(operator)
tester
operator
tester*operator
Error
Total

DF
14
1
1
1
14
31

SS
51.456
0.201
140.840
32.805
21.860
247.162

MS
3.675
0.201
140.840
32.805
1.561

F
2.35
0.13
38.32
21.01

P
0.060
0.725
0.000
0.000

Source
1
2
3
4
5

Variance Error Expected Mean Square for Each Term


component term (using restricted model)
wafer(operator)
1.057
5
(5) + 2(1)
tester
5
(5) + 16Q[2]
operator
1
(5) + 2(1) + 16Q[3]
tester*operator
5
(5) + 8Q[4]
Error
1.561
(5)

The ANOVA table shows that the operator and the tester-operator interaction are
significant. There also seems to be some wafer to wafer variability for this response. The
residual graphs show no unusual patterns.

Resposnse 5 teos: Oxide thickness of dielectric between first and second metal

layers, Angstroms
Results for: Worksheet 2
ANOVA: teos versus tester, operator, wafer
Factor
Type Levels Values
wafer(operator) random
8
1
7
tester
fixed
2
1
operator
fixed
2
1

2
8
2
2

Analysis of Variance for teos


Source
wafer(operator)
tester
operator
tester*operator
Error
Total

DF
14
1
1
1
14
31

SS
5224.7
32.0
7564.5
150607.2
6256.4
169684.8

MS
373.2
32.0
7564.5
150607.2
446.9

F
0.84
0.07
20.27
337.01

P
0.630
0.793
0.000
0.000

Source
1
2
3
4
5

Variance Error Expected Mean Square for Each Term


component term (using restricted model)
wafer(operator)
-36.85
5
(5) + 2(1)
tester
5
(5) + 16Q[2]
operator
1
(5) + 2(1) + 16Q[3]
tester*operator
5
(5) + 8Q[4]
Error
446.89
(5)

The operator and test*operator interaction are shown as significant. No issues are seen
with residuals plots. Originally the data was not entered in enough significant digits, and
thus the data appeared on the normal plot on the straight line, as discrete data.
Conclusion
The expected results were that none of the effects would be shown to be
significant to the variation of the measurements, except possibly some wafer-to-wafer
variation. For the four responses of M2 snake (resistance), leakage, Vtn (threshold
voltage),and TEOS thickness (angstroms), the operator*tester interaction is important,
indicating a possible violation of the randomness of the wafer samples used in the
experiment. This could also be confounded with the time measured for these random
samples.

The N+ sheet resistance (ohms per square) showed an effect due to the operator,
which is possible, but not expected. The setup procedure for putting the probe needles on
the first die under test may be the source of this effect.
The wafer-to-wafer effect on the m2 snake resistance could be due to a singlewafer effect as a result of dry etching variation within a lot.

The operator*tester

interaction would not be expected to be a result of this source of variation, however.

Recommendations
It is still recommended to do the originally planned gauge study, to verify the
operator effect on the N+ Rs, and the interactions on the three responses. It is possible
that this will be finished by the end of work week 12/08, and may be submitted as any
addendum to this report. If the operator effect is still important, then an analysis of the
setup procedure is warranted after review of the training of the chosen operators. If the
operator*tester interaction is not seen as important, the assumption of randomness of the
wafers chosen could be confirmed as having been violated. If the factory was following a
system of electrically testing lots at random, these results would indicate that might not
be a good practice.

Appendix

Residual graphs for Rn (Sheet Resistance of N+ active area, ohms/square)

Residuals Versus the Order of the Data


(response is rn)
0.15
0.10

Residual

0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
5

10

15

20

25

30

Observation Order

Residuals Versus the Fitted Values


(response is rn)
0.15
0.10

Residual

0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
3.6

3.7

3.8

Fitted Value

3.9

4.0

Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals


(response is rn)

Normal Score

-1

-2
-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

Residual

4.1
4.0

rn

3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
1.0

1.5

operator

2.0

0.15

4.1
4.0

rn

3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
1.0

1.5

2.0

tester

4.1
4.0

rn

3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
1

wafer

Residual graphs for Vtn ( Threshold voltage of large W/L n-channel transistor, volts )

Residuals Versus the Order of the Data


(response is vtn)
0.003
0.002

Residual

0.001
0.000
-0.001
-0.002
-0.003
5

10

15

20

25

30

Observation Order

Residuals Versus the Fitted Values


(response is vtn)
0.003
0.002

Residual

0.001
0.000
-0.001
-0.002
-0.003
0.86

0.87

0.88

Fitted Value

0.89

0.90

0.91

Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals


(response is vtn)

Normal Score

-1

-2
-0.003

-0.002

-0.001

0.000

0.001

0.002

Residual

0.91
0.90

vtn

0.89
0.88
0.87
0.86
0.85
1.0

1.5

operator

2.0

0.003

0.91
0.90

vtn

0.89
0.88
0.87
0.86
0.85
1.0

1.5

2.0

tester

0.91
0.90

vtn

0.89
0.88
0.87
0.86
0.85
1

wafer

Residual graphs for Leakage (Leakage Current of capacitor with electrodes

composed of the first and second metal layers, amperes)


Residuals Versus the Order of the Data
(response is leak)

Residual

0.1

0.0

-0.1

10

15

20

25

30

Observation Order

Residuals Versus the Fitted Values


(response is leak)

Residual

0.1

0.0

-0.1

-9.5

-9.4

-9.3

-9.2

-9.1

-9.0

-8.9

Fitted Value

-8.8

-8.7

-8.6

-8.5

Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals


(response is leak)

Normal Score

-1

-2
-0.1

0.0

0.1

Residual

-8.5
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8

leak

-8.9
-9.0
-9.1
-9.2
-9.3
-9.4
-9.5
1.0

1.5

operator

2.0

-8.5
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8

leak

-8.9
-9.0
-9.1
-9.2
-9.3
-9.4
-9.5
1.0

1.5

2.0

tester

-8.5
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8

leak

-8.9
-9.0
-9.1
-9.2
-9.3
-9.4
-9.5
1

wafer

Residual Graphs for M2Snak (Sheet Resistance of first layer of metal or width 3,
ohms)
Residuals Versus the Order of the Data
(response is m2sn)
2

Residual

-1

-2
5

10

15

20

25

30

Observation Order

Residuals Versus the Fitted Values


(response is m2sn)
2

Residual

-1

-2
125

130

Fitted Value

135

Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals


(response is m2sn)

-1

-2
-2

-1

Residual

136

m2sn

Normal Score

131

126
1.0

1.5

operator

2.0

m2sn

136

131

126
1

wafer

m2sn

136

131

126
1.0

1.5

tester

2.0

Residual Graphs for Teos (Oxide thickness of dielectric between first and second metal
layers, Angstroms)

Residuals Versus the Order of the Data


(response is teos)
30
20

Residual

10
0
-10
-20
-30
5

10

15

20

25

30

Observation Order

Residuals Versus the Fitted Values


(response is teos)
30
20

Residual

10
0
-10
-20
-30
10100

10200

Fitted Value

10300

Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals


(response is teos)

-1

-2
-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

Residual

10350

teos

Normal Score

10250

10150

1.0

1.5

operator

2.0

teos

10350

10250

10150

1.0

1.5

2.0

tester

teos

10350

10250

10150

wafer

You might also like