21
KGD Probing of TSVs at 40 um Array Pitch 3D-TSV Probe Technology Goals MEMS probe tip evolution Contact performance TSV pad damage (or lack thereof) Conclusions Ken Smith, Peter Hanaway, Mike Jolley, Reed Gleason, Chris Fournier, and Eric Strid

KGD Probing of TSVs at 40 um Array Pitch 3D-TSV Probe Technology Goals MEMS probe tip evolution Contact performance TSV pad damage (or lack thereof) Conclusions

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

KGD Probing of TSVs at 40 um Array Pitch

• 3D-TSV Probe Technology Goals

• MEMS probe tip evolution

• Contact performance

• TSV pad damage (or lack thereof)

• Conclusions

Ken Smith, Peter Hanaway, Mike Jolley, Reed Gleason, Chris Fournier, and Eric Strid

3D-TSV Probe Technology Development Goals

• Scale array pitch to 40 um

• Reduce pad damage to allow prebond probe

• Decrease cost of test– Simplified, high yield process

• Fundamental understanding and accurate

models of contact performance

Pyramid Probe Technology

• RF filters, switches

• Process monitors (including M1 copper)

• RFSOC Multi-DUT

3D Probing Requires a New Cost Structure

4

COGS/ pin ($)

in 2012

Array Pitch (um)

400200100502512 80063 1600

2

1

0.50

0.25

0.12

0.06

DRAM& Flash

Logic/SoCC

onst

ant c

ost p

er a

rea

Printed probe: n

early

constant cost

per area

Vertical probe: cost

increases with density

3D R

equi

res

cons

tant

cos

t per

chi

p

Technology must be printed, repairable, scalable, compliant

Scaling a Probe Card

100 um pitch~10 gm/tip

35 um pitch~1 gm/tip

• Decrease XYZ dimensions by K• Same materials• Decrease Z motions by K• Force per tip decreases by K2; tip pressure constant

• Pyramid Probe ST: Pads on membrane – Routing limitation ~3-4 rows deep from DUT

pad perimeter

• Replaceable contact layer

3D TSV Probe Card Architecture

Wafer

Plunger

PCB PCB

Replaceable Contact Layer

• Tips are 5 um

square and 20

um tall

• 35 um pitch

array

• 24 x 48 tips

Contact resistance versus probing force

• Single 12 um square tip

• Sn plated wafer 5 um thick

Contact resistance versus probing force

• 6 um tip

• Force required is similar to 12 um tip

Force (gm•f ) vs. Deflection (um)

• 1gm•f /um tip design

• High durometer elastomer

Force (gm•f ) vs. Deflection (um)

• 0.1 gm•f tip design

• Low durometer elastomer

Pyramid Probe ST Routing

• Unique fine-pitch routing

• High-frequency performance similar to Pyramid Probes

• Example is memory array

• – 50 um x 40 um pad pitch

• – 40 x 6 pad array

Fully routed 6x40 array with 40-50 um pitch

Optical photograph of probe mark array

• Marks are exceptionally

uniform

• ~1 gram / contact for

low pad damage

Profilometer scan of probe mark array

• Maximum depth 100 nm

• Maximum berm 500 nm

Probe marks on ENIG TSV pad

• Exaggerated conditions: 10 TDs at 2.5 gf

• Navigation grid (50 x 40 um) shows 3 probe

marks on the 100 um diameter pad

Probe mark depth less than surface roughness (~200 nm)

Probe mark on ENIG pad

• ~3 x 7 um

• Exposed Ni ~50%

• Depends on surface grains

Probe mark uniformity: Profilometer scans

• Depth: Mean 68, Stdev 11

• Berm: Mean 363, Stdev 76

TDR traces on open and short

• <40 ps rise / fall times (100 ps / div)

• Limited by routing density in ST

Conclusions

• Practical probe cards are capable of 40 um

pitch and tip forces below 1 gm

• Pad damage at these low forces is extremely

small with scrub marks less than 100 nm

deep

• Lithographically printed probe cards enable a

scalability path to lower cost and finer pitches

• Probing the TSVs is not out of the question