250 likes | 407 Views
Effectiveness Measures for VLSI Testing: Defective Parts per Million, Defect Coverage and Fault Coverage. Vishwani D. Agrawal James J. Danaher Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849 http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~vagrawal
E N D
Effectiveness Measures for VLSI Testing: Defective Parts per Million, Defect Coverage and Fault Coverage Vishwani D. Agrawal James J. Danaher Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849 http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~vagrawal vagrawal@eng.auburn.edu Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
VLSI Chip Yield • A manufacturing defect is a finite chip area with electrically malfunctioning circuitry caused by errors in the fabrication process. • A chip with no manufacturing defect is called a good chip. • Fraction (or percentage) of good chips produced in a manufacturing process is called the yield. Yield is denoted by symbol Y. • Cost of a chip: Cost of fabricating and testing a wafer Yield × Number of chip sites on the wafer Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Clustered VLSI Defects Good chips Faulty chips Defects Wafer Clustered defects (VLSI) Wafer yield = 17/22 = 0.77 Unclustered defects Wafer yield = 12/22 = 0.55 Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Yield Parameters • Defect density (d ) = Average number of defects per unit of chip area • Chip area (A ) • Clustering parameter (a) • Negative binomial distribution of defects, p (x ) = Prob(number of defects on a chip = x ) Γ(α+x ) (Ad / α) x = . x ! Γ (α) (1+Ad / α) α+x where Γis the gamma function α = 0, p (x ) is a delta function (max. clustering) α = , p (x ) is Poisson distr. (no clustering, William/Brown) Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Yield Equation Y = Prob( zero defect on a chip ) = p (0) Y = ( 1 + Ad / α ) – α Example: Ad = 1.0, α = 0.5, Y = 0.58 Unclustered defects: α = ,Y = e – Ad Example: Ad = 1.0, α = , Y = 0.37 too pessimistic ! Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Defect Level or Reject Ratio • Defect level (DL) is the ratio of faulty chips among the chips that pass tests. • DL is measured as defective parts per million (dpm, or simply ppm). • DL is a measure of the effectiveness of tests. • DL is a quantitative measure of the manufactured product quality: • For commercial VLSI chips a DL higher than 500 dpm is considered unacceptable. • Chip manufacturers strive for much lower defect levels. Below 100 dpm means high quality. • Zero-defect refers to 3.4 dpm or below. Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Determination of DL • From field return data: Chips failing in the field are returned to the manufacturer. The number of returned chips normalized to one million chips shipped is the DL. • From test data: Fault coverage of tests and chip fallout rate are analyzed. A modified yield model is fitted to the fallout data to estimate the DL. Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Modified Yield Equation • Three parameters: • Fault density, f = average number of stuck-at faults per unit chip area • Fault clustering parameter, b • Stuck-at fault coverage, T • The modified yield equation: Y (T ) = (1 + TAf / β) –β Assuming that tests with 100% fault coverage (T =1.0) remove all faulty chips, Y = Y (1) = (1 + Af / β) – β Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Defect Level Y (T ) - Y (1) DL (T ) = Y (T ) ( β + TAf ) β = 1 – ( β + Af ) β Where T is the fault coverage of tests, Af is the average number of faults on the chip of area A, β is the fault clustering parameter. Af and β are determined by test data analysis. b = , Y (T ) = e –TAf and DL(T ) = 1 – Y (1)1 –T Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Example: SEMATECH Chip • Bus interface controller ASIC fabricated and tested at IBM, Burlington, Vermont • 116,000 equivalent (2-input NAND) gates • 304-pin package, 249 I/O • Clock: 40MHz, some parts 50MHz • 0.8m CMOS, 3.3V, 9.4mm x 8.8mm area • Full scan, 99.79% fault coverage • Advantest 3381 ATE, 18,466 chips tested at 2.5MHz test clock • Data obtained courtesy of Phil Nigh (IBM) Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Test Coverage from Fault Simulator Stuck-at fault coverage Vector number, V Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Measured Chip Fallout Measured chip fallout Vector number, V Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Model Fitting Unclustered faults: 1 – e– TAf Af = 0.31, β = Y (1) = 0.7348 Clustered faults: 1 – (1+TAf/β)– β Af = 2.1, β = 0.083 Chip fallout and computed 1-Y (T ) Y (1) = 0.7623 Measured chip fallout Stuck-at fault coverage, T Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Computed Defect Level (1 – 0.7348)×106 (1 – 0.7623)×106 Unclustered faults, β = Clustered faults, β = 0.083 Defect level (dpm) Stuck-at fault coverage (%) Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Reexamine Assumption • Assumption: 100% fault coverage leads to zero defect level. • Reality: 100% defect coverage leads to zero defect level. • Must examine the two coverages. Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Fault vs. Defect Coverage Fault coverage, T(V ) Defect coverage, D(V ) • Coverage = % of stuck-at faults detected by vectors. • Faults are countable. • Alternative definition: T (V )= Prob (detection by V vectors | a fault is present) • All faults assumed equally probable on a faulty chip. • Determined theoretically. • Coverage = % of real defects detected by vectors. • Many types, large numbers. • Alternative definition: D (V ) = Prob (detection by V vectors | a defect is present) • Each defect may have a different probability of occurrence. • Determined experimentally. Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Defect Coverage D (V ) = Prob (detection by V vectors | chip is defective) Prob (failure by V vectors) = 1 – Y (1) 1 – Y (d ) = 1 – Y (1) Measured yield, Y (d ),and estimated true yield, Y (1),can provide a statistical estimate for defect coverage. Source of inaccuracy: true yield, Y(1), is not known. Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Defect and Fault Coverages Defect coverage D(V ) from test data Y(1) = 0.7623 Fault coverage T(V ) from fault simulator Coverage Vector number (V ) Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Defect vs. Fault Coverage D > T Defect coverage, D D < T Fault coverage, T Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Conclusion • Defect coverage can be determined from the measured test data. • Assumption: • Either, tests are capable of activating the defect (Q: Can a delay defect be detected by slow-speed stuck-at fault tests?) • Or, the real defect is clustered with faults detectable by the tests. • The above assumption, “DL = 0 at f = 100%,” may be justified since fault coverage appears to be more pessimistic than defect coverage. • Defect coverage D (V ) is a transformation of test data: • Vector 0 → coverage 0% • Vector → coverage 100% • Unclustered fault assumption adds pessimism. Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Future Directions • Defect density, d, should not be confused with defect coverage, D (V ): • d = number of defects per unit area • D (V ) = percentage of all possible defects detected by V vectors • Analyze test data for yield, defect coverage and defect level without involving modeled faults. Experiment Y Chip fallout fraction Fraction of chips Vectors, V 0 1.0 Prob(defect occurrence) Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Directions . . . • Diagnosis: Defects do not conform to any single fault model. • Question: Which is better? • 100% coverage for one fault model, or • some coverage for multiple fault models Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
Directions . . . • Generate tests for defect coverage and diagnosis. • Question: which is better? • 100% stuck-at fault coverage, or • 100% diagnostic coverage of stuck-at faults, or • N-detect tests (longer tests), or • Any of the above + random vectors. Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness
References • The clustered fault model used for Sematech data is described in the book: M. L. Bushnell and V. D. Agrawal, Essentials of Electronic Testing for Digital, Memory and Mixed-Signal VLSI Circuits, Springer, 2000, Chapter 3. • The unclustered defect model is from the paper: T. W. Williams and N. C. Brown, “Defect Level as a Function of Fault Coverage,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. C-30, no. 12, pp. 987-988, Dec. 1981. • The discussion on defect coverage is from a presentation: J. T. de Sousa and V. D. Agrawal, “An Experimental Study of Tester Yield and Defect Coverage,” IEEE International Test Synthesis Workshop, Santa Barbara, California, March 2001. • A direct analysis of defect level without involving the stuck-at fault coverage is given in the paper: S. C. Seth and V. D. Agrawal, “On the Probability of Fault Occurrence,” Defect and Fault Tolerance in VLSI Systems, I. Koren, editor, Plenum Publishing Corp., 1989, pp. 47-52. Agrawal: VLSI Testing Effectiveness