Ion Implant Data Log Analysis for Process Control
and Fault Detection
Michael J. Rendon, David C. Sing, Marcy Beard, Michael Hartig, John C. Arnold
Motorola – Technology and Manufacturing
Dan Noble Center
Austin, TX 78721 US
Abstract— Data mining techniques have been introduced to the
semiconductor industry in recent years. In many applications
real time process data from plasma etch or deposition tools is
collected and powerful statistical methods are used to detect
trends and correlations among variables; the results of which can
be used for process control and fault detection. The introduction
of such methods to ion implant process control has been slow,
partly due to the large number (from hundreds to thousands) of
process recipes which can be run on a given tool, and the relative
lack of real time process signals which are available during a
typical ion implant process. However, valuable run summary
data is available on virtually every ion implant tool in the form of
implant data logs (IDL’s). The introduction of modern computer
networking technology makes it possible to automatically collect
data from IDL’s on multiple implant tools and store them in a
database. Once the database is formed a multitude of analysis
tools can be applied for process control, fault detection, and
ultimately scrap reduction and yield enhancement. Traditional
data mining techniques such as principle component analysis can
be applied to seek out correlations among the many different
signals available. However, the precise nature of the ion implant
process allows some variables to be analyzed in a more
deterministic manner. For example, a precise and predictable
functional relationship is expected to be present between analyzer
magnet current and the implant species charge, mass, and
energy. A model can be generated to predict the magnet current
and the value in the IDL can be compared against it. The
deviations between model predictions and actual implant
parameters can be used as the input to a response system which,
given the nature of the signal and the size and statistical
significance of the deviation, would generate the appropriate
response, if any. The level of the response could vary from an
email notification to an engineer (for example, the detection of
recipe with a bad source setup history which could be improved
to reduce autotune times) to the automatic shutdown of the tool
(if the wrong species was determined to have been implanted).
Keywords-Ion Implantation; Automatic Process Control; Mass
Analysis; Charge Control)
I. INTRODUCTION
In the past decade tool manufacturers have improved upon
the quality and quantity of summary statistics files available on
ion implant tools. This trend has been facilitated by the
increase in processing and storage capability of the PC and
UNIX based workstations that have been coupled to the tool’s
automation systems. Several implant tool suppliers offer SPC
packages that provide the capability to review summary
- 331 -
statistics of a user selectable recipe or set of recipes. However,
the data export capability of the on-board SPC function is often
limited to transferring a single variable at a time to a 3.5-inch
floppy disk, and the system cannot be easily accessed remotely.
In this paper we report on progress in developing a network
based implant data log (IDL) data analysis system which can
be used to access data from multiple tools and multiple recipes.
The system that is currently under development can be used to
generate individual control charts from any of over 100 process
variables for a user selectable process recipe or from all
implants in the database. Multi-variable models are being
developed to compare relationships among process variables.
These models calculate predicted values of process variables,
and the differences between the model and the actual variables
are used as indicators of process drift, hardware malfunctions,
recipe integrity, and in some cases mis-processing.
II. GLOBAL PROCESS MODELS
A common problem an implant process engineer is faced
with is that a given implant tool or toolset utilizes a very large
number of process recipes. Even within a tool type, for
example high current implanters, doses can range over four
orders of magnitude (10 to 10 ions/cm ), energies can range
12 16 2
over nearly two orders of magnitude (3 to 160 keV), and ion
masses can vary over one order of magnitude (11 AMU for
Boron to 121 AMU for Antimony). Control charts for a single
process variable for a single recipe can be useful for detecting
tool faults and process drifts, but faced with hundreds of
process recipes and over 100 variables for each recipe to
review, a process engineer can easily be overwhelmed by the
crush of data, especially since each tool often produces over
100 IDL files each day. Multi-variable process models which
can be applied to all the IDL files regardless of the specific
process recipe, or at least a large subset of available process
recipe, provide the basis for a more powerful process control
system. Multi-variable process models for analyzer magnet
current, secondary electron flood gun current, and source arc
current are presented in the following section.
0-7803-7155-0/02/$10.00 © 2002 IEEE
 III. EXAMPLES OF GLOBAL PROCESS VARIABLE MODELS
A. Analyzer Magnet Universal Curve
The heart of virtually all ion implant tools is the mass
analysis magnet. The fundamental equation which governs the
operation of the magnet is the well known relationship between
the charge Q, mass M, and energy E of an ion and its radius of
curvature R as it moves in magnetic field of strength B:
R*B = sqrt ( 2*M*E / Q )
2
This equation can be re-written in terms of the analyzer
magnet current I and the extraction voltage V as:
I = K * sqrt ( M*V / Q)
where K is a constant which contains the geometry factors
(radius R) and other fixed factors. The quantity sqrt ( M*V / Q)
is referred to as the magnetic stiffness of the beam. In reality,
the relationship between magnet current and magnetic stiffness
becomes non-linear at high magnetic fields due to saturation of
the magnet core. However, a plot of analyzer magnet current
versus magnetic stiffness will form a smooth curve for implants
of all species, charge states, beam currents, and extraction
voltages for a properly calibrated analyzer magnet. A similar
model can also be constructed for other magnets which are
used to steer the beam, for example, the final energy magnet of
many high energy implanters.
Figure 1. Analyzer Magnet Universal Curve (data from 4 tools
overlayed).’X’ marks fliers due to AMU calibration error.
Figure 1 shows the analyzer magnet current vs stiffness plot
for four high current tools installed at Motorola’s MOS13
facility. Data is plotted for every implant from June 1 to July
31, 2002 for three tools, and from November 2001 to January
2002 for a fourth. Over 20,000 implants are represented in this
plot. The November to January dataset includes a case where
an AMU calibration error caused a scrap incident. The bad
implants are clearly separated above the bulk of the data, and
are marked with an ‘X’. Figure 2 shows the control chart for
the November to January data, where the relative error between
the actual magnet current and a fourth order polynomial fit to
the magnet curve data is plotted. The bad implants are again
(1)
easily identified as flyers well separated from the bulk of the
data.
B. Secondary Electron Flood (SEF) Primary Current
The high current implant tools employ an SEF charge
(2) control system, the operating parameters are set by the recipe
values. The standard recipe setting of the SEF primary current
is ten times the ion beam current. Occasionally, when a beam
current in a recipe is changed, or a recipe is copied from
another recipe, the SEF current will be incorrectly set. A global
check of all implants is implemented by calculating the ratio of
the beam current to plasma flood from the IDL files, This ratio
should be near 10 for all implants. Figure 3 shows the ratio of
Primary SEF current to Beam current for one tool (#417) for
two months of implants. This control chart can then be used to
flag IDL files for a follow up to check to see if the recipe called
for the correct SEF primary current or if the SEF system was
operating normally.
Figure 2. Magnet Curve Control Chart (data from 1 tool). ‘X’
marks fliers due to AMU calibration error.
- 332 - 0-7803-7155-0/02/$10.00 © 2002 IEEE

Figure 3. Ratio of primary flood gun current to beam current (data from
1 tool)
C. Species Specific Arc Current Models
Arc current is the single best indication of good source and
extraction performance. A poorly built source or poorly aligned
extraction assembly often results in excessive arc current
required to produce a given beam. Poor source or extraction
performance can be identified by comparing the actual arc
current against the arc current predicted by a model. A simple
model was constructed for As+ arc current (Iarc) using a power
law model:
Iarc = A * (Inorm)
B
(3)
In (3) normalized beam current (Inorm) was calculated using the
average beam current from the IDL file divided by the
maximum beam current. The maximum beam current is
Figure 4. As+ arc current model results (data from 1 tool).
- 333 -
calculated by linear interpolation the manufacturer’s table of
maximum spec beam currents as a function of energy. Figure 4
shows the predicted arc current vs the actual arc current for a
single tool (#417). A good correlation is observed, with a
correlation coefficient of greater than 0.9. A control chart of the
relative error between the actual arc current and the predicted
arc current is shown in Figure 5. The data shows this tool
generally sets up within 20% of the predicted value, and the
flyers can then be analyzed to identify recipes with excessive
arc current that may require retuning.
IV. A PROTOTYPE IDL ANALYSIS SYSTEM
As was mentioned earlier, it is increasingly common for
implanters and many other process tools to have dozens or
hundreds of different recipes active at any given time. Even
when the number of recipes is smaller, other factors such as
wafer pattern density, film thickness, etc. can cause a given
tool to have many distinct sets of operating conditions. This
proliferation of states presents a new challenge for traditional
fault detection methods, which typically demand that the tool
owner either explicitly set limits for each parameter or
manually classify runs as “good” or “bad” for the purposes of
training a statistical model. As the number of “normal”
operating states increases, the burden associated with
establishing and maintaining limits becomes unmanageable.
To mitigate this effect, a different approach was employed
in this work. Rather than attempting to automatically
disposition each run as “good” or “bad,” the analytical system
was designed to flag anomalous runs for further engineering
attention. Although this approach theoretically leaves more
opportunity for wafer scrap, particularly if the cycle time for
engineering response is long, the much lower cost in up front
effort makes it more attractive than the conventional methods.
An analysis program was written using a commercially
available software package to demonstrate the approach. A new
Figure 5. As+ arc current control chart (data from 1 tool).
0-7803-7155-0/02/$10.00 © 2002 IEEE
type of chart was created, with limits automatically added as
soon as any data is entered. The limits are based on the mean
and standard deviation of the data up to that point, and they
change with each new point entered. Initially all points are
included in the limits calculations. After a user-configurable
“ignore time” any point outside the limits will be considered an
anomalous run (a “flyer”) and will not be included in
subsequent calculations. In addition, a cap is placed on the
number of points used in the limits calculation so the dataset
rolls as more points are added to the chart..
Models have been created within the program for the
analyzer magnet, plasma flood gun, and arc current curves.
After a certain number of points are entered, a model is
automatically generated and residuals are calculated against it.
The residual values are plotted and limits are set up as
described above in order to flag points that land a significant
distance from the model curve. Figures 1 through 5 are
examples of the models and control charts created using this
algorithm.
- 334 -
The initial version of the system is interactive and requires
user participation. Design of an automated system is underway,
with a goal of automatically collecting the data, processing it
through the analysis routines, and reporting on all flyer points
[1]. A graphical user interface will be included for viewing
charts and updating user input parameters such as how many
points are needed before making a model. Default values for
these parameters will allow the system to run without user
setup, but the engineer may wish to modify the parameters for a
particular variable to allow for known trends or different levels
of variation. System tweaks will be required to limit reporting
of false flyers while still capturing real problems, but it is
expected that the time spent doing so will be much less than
setting up user-defined limits in the first place.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Rendon, D. C. Sing, “Local Area Network LAN Address
Manufacturing and Development Implant Tool Issues,” International Ion
Implant Technology Conference 2002, unpublished.
0-7803-7155-0/02/$10.00 © 2002 IEEE