D efect M anagement
Enabling Manufacturing
Productivity Improvement and
Test Wafer Cost Reduction
Ming Li, Lisa Cheung, and Mark Keefer KLA-Tencor Corporation
Use of a Surfscan SP2 inspection system can cut production costs by extending the reuse lifetimes of some monitor
wafers and reducing the need for new test wafers. For a large foundry, this new technology can increase the in-house
recycle rate and decrease the repolish rate by 15%, which translates to over $3M in annual savings.
Todays wafer fabrication plants must carefully balance the
need to increase productivity while simultaneously reducing
variable costs. There are a couple of main areas where process
control (metrology and inspection) equipment can help
minimize variable cost. The first is reducing consumables
minimizing the number of wafers that are processed for
non-revenue operations, i.e., test wafers. Second is process
equipment productivity improvements, by reducing the
number of maintenance cycles per year and the associated
time lost due to resolving process excursion false alarms. This
article will explore these ideas in more detail, to determine an
effective method for reducing test wafer cost in a leading-edge
65nm design rule foundry.
Process Tool Monitoring
Particle counts on unpatterned test (or monitor) wafers are
typically used to monitor the health of process tools, either
after preventive maintenance (tool qualification) or prior to
running production wafers, after a specified number of hours
or at the beginning of each shift (tool monitoring). Process
tool qualification occurs after preventive maintenance or to
requalify the tool after unscheduled downtime. Tool monitor-
ing is used to quickly detect process tool excursions. Addi-
tionally, unpatterned wafer inspection tools can be used for
engineering analysis work, either to characterize new process
tools or diagnose specific contamination problems that led to
a process tool being removed from production (tool-down
problems).
Process tool monitoring uses a single unpatterned test wafer
for each process chamber, with higher grade wafers used for
front-end-of-line processes, where critical dimensions are
smaller and greater inspection sensitivity is required. The test
Summer 2007 Yield Management Solutions | www.kla-tencor.com/ymsmagazine
wafer is inspected, passes through the process tool (with or
without activating the process chamber) and is reinspected.
Added defects are calculated using a traditional post- minus
pre-count calculation, or a more sophisticated map-to-map
defect overlay comparison (reference 1). Post-scan inspection
results reveal any defects added by the process tool, expressed
as particles per wafer pass (PWP) added.
The Process Tool Monitoring Procedure
The first step of the process tool monitoring procedure is to
assign the test wafers into bins by grade. Grade (usually A, B
or C) refers to the quality of the test wafer appropriate for
different monitoring applications, in this case its surface
roughness, since smaller-size particles can be more reliably
detected on smooth wafers than on rough wafers. Surface
roughness is normally measured by using the inspection tool
to detect haze, the low-frequency, low-amplitude component
of the light scattered from the wafer surface. Haze is measured
in ppm, a ratio of the average surface scattering intensity to the
incident laser beam intensity. For bare wafers, haze is strongly
correlated with surface roughness. (When a transparent film is
present, haze also includes film parameter variation.)
The second step is the actual process tool monitoring step:
comparing pre- and post-processing inspections and quantify-
ing the added defects. In order to re-use the test waters, they
are chemically stripped to remove any film layers and particles
that were added by sending them through the process tools.
The chemical stripping results in higher surface roughness or
haze (the upper loop in Figure 1), and the test wafers must be
regraded. After a certain number of recycle steps the test wafers
fail the roughest grade specifications, and are then sent for re-
claim (repolished) or scrapped (the lower left loop in Figure 1).
11
D efect M anagement

Extending the Useable Life

In-house chemical clean of Monitor Wafers
Regeneration area Defect detection sensitivity
SP1 Grade Pre SP1 Post SP1
is determined by the ratio of
PWP < X Process
Test
Inspection A, B, C Inspection Inspection the defect signal to its back-
wafers
Grading
ground. As the background
A < X1 counts <Y1 ppm
level (haze) approaches the
B < X2 counts <Y2 ppm detection threshold, the
C < X3 counts <Y3 ppm
signal-to-noise ratio decreases
(Figure 2, left). To ensure that
Reclaim 1 Reclaim 2 Reclaim 3 defects can be detected with-
Scrap $300/wfr Re-polish $30 / wfr
New
out the occurrence of false
wafers Grade A B C
alarms, it is desirable to keep
a high defect signal-to-noise
Roughness ratio, typically above 3.
However, as the number of
Figure 1: Process monitoring loop using test wafers
chemical strips (recycles)
increases the surface roughness
Threshold Threshold and haze of the test wafer,
the signal-to-noise ratio for
Laser scattering signal (ppm)

detection of small defects on

Laser scattering signal (ppm)

the wafer surface decreases.

Manufacturing considerations
Noise such as matching one inspection
tools results to other tools
dictate that the inspection
Haze Haze sensitivity threshold remains
at a fixed value. This means
that the detection threshold
Scan position Scan position
cannot simply be increased to
Figure 2: Relationship between wafer surface roughness (haze) and inspection sensitivity, for a wafer having a low mitigate the increased back-
haze value (left) and a high haze value (right). Note: Noise is proportional to the haze. ground noise, as suggested in
Figure 2 (right). Hence, the
number of recycle steps that
can be performed on any given
Surfscan SP1 Surfscan SP2
test wafer is limited by this
increase in surface roughness.
What is needed is a way to
increase the inspection signal-
to-noise ratio for small defects
on rough wafers. The current
generation wafer surface
Figure 3: Rough wafer sensitivity comparison. Surfscan SP1 map on left shows predominantly false defects, while
SP2 map on right shows predominantly real defects, with the smallest defects having a S/N > 3.
inspection system, the
Surfscan SP2, has a smaller
spot size than the previous-
SP1 HT Mode S/N vs. Wafer Haze Level SP2 HT Mode S/N vs. Wafer Haze Level generation SP1, which means
18
Low Haze
18
Low Haze that less background is
15
acceptable
inspection
Medium Haze
High Haze
15
acceptable Medium Haze
High Haze
included when the spot is
12 inspection
12
focused on a small defect. This
S/N Ratio

S/N Ratio

window window
9 9
gives the Surfscan SP2 better
6 6
sensitivity on rough wafers
3

0
3
than the SP1. Figure 3 shows
0
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 a comparison of the same
Defect Size (m LSE) Defect Size (m LSE) high-haze wafer, recycled
many times, scanned using
Figure 4: Signal-to-noise vs. wafer haze level comparison (Surfscan SP1 left, SP2 right) for defects of varying size.
the Surfscan SP1 (left) and
The acceptable inspection window has S/N ratio above 3, and defect size below 88nm LSE.
SP2 (right) systems. The SP1

Summer 2007 Yield Management Solutions | www.kla-tencor.com/ymsmagazine 12

D efect M anagement

center in the fab where these

Recycle rate from 70% to 85%
measurements were taken.
In-house chemical clean Wafers that would have been
$5 / water recycle
in the Grade B category for
Regeneration area Surfscan SP1 inspection are
SP2 PWP < X Grade Pre SP2
Process
Post SP2 now in the Grade A category
Inspection A, B, C Inspection Inspection
for SP2 inspection. Conse-
Test quently, wafers can be recycled
wafers $75K/month more times the recycle rate
in the in-house chemical clean
SP2 center was estimated to have
increased by 15%. This higher
Reclaim 3
Reclaim 1 Reclaim 2 recycle rate corresponds to a
Scrap $300/wfr Re-polish $30 / wfr
decreased reclaim (repolish)
New 10% 20% 5% Grade A B rate (Figure 5).
wafers
Roughness Using these new recycle rates,
we can estimate the cost sav-
ings as follows, for a 300mm
Figure 5: Net increase in wafer recycle rate
foundry running 25K WSPM,
with test wafer usage equal
map shows a significant population of false defects caused by to 3x the production rate,
the low signal-to-noise value. The inspection threshold, set to or 75K WSPM. Surfscan SP2 implementation increases the
capture the real defects, is also capturing the peaks of the haze in-house recycle rate and decreases the reclaim rate by 15%,
signal. On the other hand, the SP2 map shows significantly which translates to approximatly $3M in annual savings for
fewer false defects, since its superior sensitivity allows the scan this case ( Table 1). The model can be adjusted to accommo-
threshold to be set well above the haze level. The capability of date different wafer starts, test wafer usage, etc.
the Surfscan SP2 to enhance signal and better suppress noise
Summary
enables this type of inspection, in turn allowing test wafers to
be recycled for a longer period of time before they are re- Wafer fab productivity benefits from reduction of variable
claimed or scrapped. costs. Test wafer lifetimes directly impact their usability for
process tool monitoring. Using a Surfscan SP2 inspection
Figure 4 shows signal-to-noise analyses for SP1 and SP2 on
system instead of a previous-generation tool has been shown
wafers of varying haze levels. The acceptable inspection
to enable further reuse of some monitor wafers, which also
window is at the upper left portion of the chart (better than
reduces new test wafer purchases. In addition to the quantifi-
88nm sensitivity at S/N ratio 3). The SP1 high throughput
able economic impact of test wafer cost reductions, fab manu-
mode cannot meet the 3:1 signal-to-noise requirement at the
facturing productivity also increases, while disruptions due
required 88nm defect sensitivity on high-haze wafers. SP2s
to false excursion alarms resulting from unstable inspection
enhanced sensitivity and background noise suppression is able
results of roughened reclaimed wafers are minimized.
to meet the required sensitivity, even when using high-haze
wafers, in high-throughput mode.
Acknowledgements
Economic impact This material was originally presented at the KLA-Tencor
Yield Management Seminars in Shanghai (August 2006)
Figure 4 shows that the Surfscan SP2 can achieve sufficient
and Beijing (September 2006).
sensitivity and signal-to-noise on rougher wafers; as a result, a
dedicated SP2 inspector was placed into the in-house reclaim

Wafer Type Recycle Reclaim Scrap Total Test

Wafer Cost $5 $30 $300 Wafer Cost References

Wafer Volume 52.5 > 63.75K 15.0 > 3.75K 7.5K 1. Lorrie Houston, Motorola; John
(total =75K) Anderson, Motorola; Rhonda Stanley,
KLA-Tencor;
Recycle Rate (SP1) 70% 20% 10% $2.96M Process tool qualification using
Recycle Rate 85% 5% 10% $2.68M SP1TBI automated overlay feature,
(SP1+SP2) KLA-Tencor Surfscan Applications
Note (2002).
Cost saving per month $56,250 $337,500 no change $0.28M

Table 1: Estimated monthly cost savings from increased wafer recycle rate: $0.28M, for an annual savings rate of $3.36M.

Summer 2007 Yield Management Solutions | www.kla-tencor.com/ymsmagazine 13