2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.microrel.2014.03.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Case studies of defect localization based on software-based fault diagnosis in comparison with PEMS/OBIRCH analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The abnormal current variation at the abnormal spot is about 2.5 µA, while the current variation at the normal spot is about 0.5 µA (Figure 5c). This result is in accordance with the result tested by Emission Microscopy (EMMI) ( Figure 6), which is another common defect localization technology [18]. Figure 7 shows a possible physical reason for the failure, that is a cavity in the copper, found by the Focused Ion Beam (FIB) facility.…”
Section: Failure Localizationsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The abnormal current variation at the abnormal spot is about 2.5 µA, while the current variation at the normal spot is about 0.5 µA (Figure 5c). This result is in accordance with the result tested by Emission Microscopy (EMMI) ( Figure 6), which is another common defect localization technology [18]. Figure 7 shows a possible physical reason for the failure, that is a cavity in the copper, found by the Focused Ion Beam (FIB) facility.…”
Section: Failure Localizationsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…As the laser beam scans the defect location, the abnormal ∆I will be tested, and a red spot will be marked on the layout diagram. The test results supplied by the voltage source or current source have similar properties according to Equations (16) and (18), so a voltage source is used for the test.…”
Section: Testing Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…After comparing the measured data of good and failure samples, we can know that the abnormal part of the chip may be the digital module (red box on the left in Figure 8a) and the eFuse module (red box on the right in Figure 8a) of the chip. After testing with the location system, we also tested the good and failure samples using the PHEMOS-1000 system [29], setting the system using a 5× objective with a 15 s exposure time. Figure 9 shows the hot spot distribution obtained by the InGaAs camera for a good sample.…”
Section: Defect Locationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It can be verified that the defect localization system we proposed has good static defect localization ability. After testing with the location system, we also tested the good and failure samples using the PHEMOS-1000 system [29], setting the system using a 5× objective with a 15 s exposure time. Figure 9 shows the hot spot distribution obtained by the InGaAs camera for a good sample.…”
Section: Defect Locationmentioning
confidence: 99%