Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
NARROW
Format
Topics
Article Type
Volume Subject Area
Date
Availability
1-1 of 1
Chun Yen Chen
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Proceedings Papers
ISTFA2009, ISTFA 2009: Conference Proceedings from the 35th International Symposium for Testing and Failure Analysis, 189-192, November 15–19, 2009,
Abstract
PDF
Abstract The techniques of doping profile inspection, such as SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) dopant contrast, SEM wet stain and SCM (Scanning Capacitance Microscope) have been widely used in failure analysis for implant root causes identification. The applications of real FA (Failure analysis) cases and advantages/disadvantages will be discussed and demonstrated in this paper. To sum up, SEM dopant contrast is the most convenient method for doping profile inspection, and SCM is the best method for low doping profile observation.
