The global radio frequency (RF) semiconductor market size is growing dramatically in recent years, especially with the growing demand for mobile devices, communication networks, automotive applications, etc. Failure analysis (FA) on RF devices is normally more complex than digital devices, especially when it involves soft failure. This paper discusses FA on an RF product soft failure issue by the pulsed currentvoltage (IV) nanoprobing technique. The device suffered from high-frequency failure and exhibited abnormal repetitive softstart signature. Previous publications on pulsed IV nanoprobing applications were mostly related to Front End Of Line (FEOL) issues and simulations. In most of these cases, the electrical abnormality could also be observed with normal DC IV measurement. In this paper, the pulsed IV nanoprobing was performed at the Back End Of Line (BEOL) interconnects to isolate the failure that was otherwise not detected with normal DC nanoprobing or the reported pulse IV measurement. The proposed method successfully isolate, simulate the failure, and helping us to identify the process and design rule weakness.

In this study, a 65nm product level low yield case has been investigated and its failure mechanism was identified. Root cause analysis was discussed and concluded. The product has been hit with ATPG failure with a unique wafer map signature - a butterfly pattern. Tools commonality and timeframe analysis show that the highly suspected process is the Metal1 Cu seed PVD step. To understand the failure mechanism and its root cause, product level FA was needed. However due to its functional failure property, the conventional EFA is not applicable in this case. Instead GDS study was performed to isolate the failure sites. Subsequently physical FA analysis was carried out at the identified sites to reveal its failure mechanism. Metal1 void was observed on the sidewall of the metal1. Meanwhile, a very interesting phenomenon was observed. If die was selected on the left part of the butterfly pattern, the void would be on the right side sidewall of the metal. If the die was selected on the right part, the void would be on the left side sidewall of the metal1. All of the voids were towards wafer center. After in-depth study of the PVD process, we suspect the pass die could also have void. These voids must be also towards wafer center. Subsequent PFA on good unit confirmed our suspect. The more detailed mechanism of the void formation was discussed and evidences supporting our analysis are to be presented in the paper. Nevertheless, the butterfly pattern is still a question in our mind. After in-depth analysis, we found the voids formation was associated with Metal1 orientation. Because of the horizontal orientation of Metal1, if the void happens it should locate in the end of the metal line in the butterfly area. While the majority of Via1/contact are stand on the line end, so the open Via1/contact failure will happen. For the die out of the butterfly area, the majority of the void locates in the sidewall of the metal line center. The majority Via1/contact are not stand in the center of the metal line center, of no Via1/contact open happen. But it is still has reliability concern. Much more detailed and in-depth mechanism is investigated in the paper. Moreover, improvement is also touched on. Systematic problem solving method is employed in this case. It is good reference for same kinds of failure analysis.