edfas.org 7 ELECTRONIC DEV ICE FA I LURE ANALYSIS | VOLUME 25 NO . 1 electrically connected, anddevoidof confoundingdamage and contamination. Even in FIB-prepared samples where surface leakage dominates transport under bias, the STEM EBIC signal can still providedetailed informationabout the local electronic structure.[18] For example, the photodiode in Fig. 3 generates strong EBIC contrast while exhibiting 1000 times more leakage than its parent device despite having a 1 million times smaller active device area. STEM EBIC can also play a role in the development of FIB-based biasing sample preparation, providing a quantitative assessment of samples’ electronic structure, including straightforward visualization of device connectivity and isolation across nominally insulating regions.[19] CONCLUSION With optimization of the sample preparation procedure, in situ biasing and STEM EBIC measurements can be implemented as routine methodologies within existing characterization workflows. The feasibility of reliably producing samples from a given device depends largely on the particulars of the device itself. Samples extracted from components with volatile constituent materials or that require isolated electrical connections to electrodes in very close proximity are particularly difficult cases. The vast array of materials and device architectures further complicates the prospect of achieving standardized, automated processing for bias-enabled TEM samples. Reliable processing may be achievable but will likely require the combined efforts of a number of research groups. In particular, collaboration is encouraged across the failure analysis and electronics manufacturing communities where there exists substantial expertise in high-throughput, high-quality TEM sample preparation and nanoscale circuit editing. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is based upon work supported by the Defense Microelectronic Activity under Contract No. HQ072721C0002. REFERENCES 1. W.A. Hubbard, et al.: “STEM Imaging with Beam-Induced Hole and Secondary Electron Currents,” Phys. Rev. Appl., 10(4), p. 044066, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.10.044066. 2. M. Mecklenburg, et al.: “Fabrication of a Lift-Out Grid with Electrical Contacts for Focused Ion Beam Preparation of Lamella for In Situ Transmission Electron Microscopy,” Microsc. Microanal., 19(S2), p. 458–459, Aug. 2013, doi: 10.1017/S1431927613004285. 3. M. Schaffer, B. Schaffer, and Q. Ramasse: “Sample Preparation for Atomic-resolution STEM at Low Voltages by FIB,” Ultramicroscopy, Vol. 114, p. 62–71, Mar. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2012.01.005. 4. K. Eder, et al.: “A Multi-ion Plasma FIB Study: Determining Ion Implantation Depths of Xe, N, O, and Ar in Tungsten via Atom Probe Tomography,” Ultramicroscopy, Vol. 228, p. 113334, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2021.113334. 5. A. Zintler, et al.: “FIB based Fabrication of an Operative Pt/HfO2/ TiN Device for Resistive Switching inside a Transmission Electron Microscope,” Ultramicroscopy, Vol. 181, p. 144–149, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2017.04.008. 6. O. Recalde, et al.: “Effect of Induced Stimuli on the Leakage Current of Operative Oxide-basedDevices inside a TEM,” Microsc. Microanal., 28(S1), p. 820–821, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1017/S1431927622003671. 7. S. Ho Oh, et al.: “In situ TEM Observation of Void Formation and Migration inPhaseChangeMemoryDeviceswithConfinedNanoscale Ge2 Sb2 Te5,” Nanoscale Adv., 2(9), p. 3841–3848, 2020, doi: 10.1039/ D0NA00223B. 8. M. Brodovoi, et al.: “In-Situ Electrical Biasing of Electrically Connected TEM Lamellae with Embedded Nanodevices,” in ISTFA 2021, Phoenix, Arizona, Oct. 2021, p. 190–195. doi: 10.31399/asm. cp.istfa2021p0190. 9. Q. Zhong, et al.: “Optimization of the In Situ Biasing FIB Sample PreparationforHafnia-BasedFerroelectricCapacitor,” Micromachines, 12(12), p. 1436, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.3390/mi12121436. 10. D. Cooper and M. Bryan: “Reproducible in-situ Electrical Biasing of Resistive Memory Materials using Piezo-controlled Electrical Contacts and Chip Based Systems,” Microsc. Microanal., 27(S1), p. 164–166, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1017/S1431927621001197. 11. W.A. Hubbard, et al.: “Nanofilament Formation and Regeneration During Cu/Al2O3 Resistive Memory Switching,” Nano Lett., 15(6), p. 3983–3987, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b00901. 12. W.A. Hubbard, et al.: “Imaging Dielectric Breakdown in Valence Change Memory,” Adv. Funct. Mater., 32(2), p. 2102313, 2022, doi: 10.1002/adfm.202102313. 13. T.E. Everhart, O.C. Wells, and R.K. Matta: “A Novel Method of Semiconductor Device Measurements,” Proc. IEEE, 52(12), p. 1642–1647, Dec. 1964, doi: 10.1109/PROC.1964.3460. 14. G.M. Johnson and A. Rummel: “Use of Passive, Quantitative EBIC to Characterize Device Turn-on in 7 nm Technology,” Microelectron. Reliab., Vol. 126, p. 114380, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j. microrel.2021.114380. 15. G. Moldovan and W. Courbat: “Strategies to Identify Physical Origin of Contrast in EBIRCH,” presented at the ISTFA 2022, Pasadena, California, USA, Oct. 2022, p. 277–283. doi: 10.31399/asm. cp.istfa2022p0277. 16. A. Rummel and A.J. Smith: “Nanoprobing at Low Beam Energy, Ad- dressing Current and Future Nodes,” EDFA, 24(2), p. 12–15, May 2022. Fig. 3 ADF STEM and STEM EBIC images of the device in Fig. 2. Both images were acquired simultaneously and therefore show signals from the same region. The EBIC image shows currentmeasured fromthe top electrode, with the current scale shown to the right. The bright EBIC signal is centered on the interface of the p- and n-doped Si layers, indicating the presence of a strong electric field at the interface.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMyMzg5NA==