Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Minimizing errors of four point probe measurements on circular wafers

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

1967 J. Sci. Instrum. 44 53

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0950-7671/44/1/312)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 147.8.31.43
This content was downloaded on 01/10/2015 at 15:08

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

J. SCI. INSTRUM., 1967, VOL. 44

Minimizing errors of four point probe measurements

on circular wafers
R. HALL
Department of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool
MS received 1st September 1966, in revisedform 10th October 1966

Abstract. The errors introduced in the use of the four point probe determination of the
resistivity of circular semiconductor wafers are examined. An optimum choice of inter-
probe spacing is found to be dependent on the ratio of the probe spacing to both the radius
and the thickness of the disk. The calculations allow the optimum probe spacing for any
set specimen geometry to be obtained.

1. Introduction If the probes PI, Pz,P3 and P4 are displaced distance 8x1
The use of the four point probe method is well established Sxz 8xgand 8x4 along the line of contact, then the increase
for the measurement of the resistivity of silicon wafers in the voltage appearing between P2 and P3will be
(Hargreaves and Millard 1962). On the assumptions of
uniform resistivity and ohmic current flow calculations have
been made to relate the measurements to the resistivity of
the material. For thin wafers, the resistivity is often derived
from the formula (Uhlir 1955) Substitution of (1) into (2), with s, = sy = s, = s, gives
TW AV
P=mI
where w is the thickness of the wafer, I is the current which
flows through the outer probes and AV is the voltage devel-
If the displacements are assumed to be random with a mean
oped across the inner probes. For this expression to give a
close approximation to the correct value of resistivity, the displacement cc the probable error in the measurement be-
following conditions must be fulfilled: comes
&AV) - 45 a
(i) the interprobe spacing s must be constant; AV 21n2s’ (4)
(ii) the probes must be sdiciently far from the periphery
of the wafer for it to have a negligible effect;
(iii) the wafer must be sui%ciently thin for there to be
negligiblepotential variation across the thickness of the wafer.
It is proposed to consider each of these conditions in turn
r““1
and to estimate the optimum interprobe spacing so as to
minimizethese effects for a wafer of given dimensions.

2. Variation of interprobe spacing

Although the probes of a test set are made with closely
equal spacing, there is, of course, a limit to the accuracy
which can be readily achieved. The effect of probe wander
(Hargreaves and Millard 1962) may be noticeable when a
probe is placed to make a pressure contact to the wafer. Figure 1. Four point probe arrangement.
Any displacement from its correct position will have the most
pronounced effect when it is directed along the line of the
probes. 3. Effect of bite radius
Consider a test set, with interprobe spacing ,s, sy,and ,s, The change in the voltage reading due to the periphery
in contact with a thin wafer of infinite extent as shown in (Vaughan 1961) of the wafer is equivalent to the superposition
figure 1. The value of the voltage difference AV between of image charges at the inverse points of the current probes
probes Pz and P3 when a current I flows from PI to P4 has PIand P4 as shown in figure 2. The increase in potential
been shown by Vaughan (1961)to be due to these charges will be

(5)

53
 R. Hull
For s/w >, 1 the calculated values can be closely approxi-
mated by the formula
Apparent resistivity
True resistivity
=1 +
2.63 exp ( - 3 4 s / w ) (8)
so that the apparent fractional increase in resistivity may
be written
9 = 2-63 exp ( - 3 . 4 4 4 ~ ) . (9)
P
5. Optimum probe spacing
If the combined effect of crystal periphery and thickness
and interprobe spacing and wander is neglected then the
apparent resistivity calculated by equation ( 1 ) has a total
error of
1.61a 2 . 1 6 ~ ~
Figure 2. Image system for probes. - S t- U2 +
2.63 exp ( - 3 4 4 s l w ) . (10)

Figure 3 shows how the error varies as a function of the

If 11 12 13 and 14 are expressed in terms ofthe Wafer radius interprobe spacing s for typical values of a, w and a.
and the probe setting p and t as defined in figure 2, then

(a2 - t2)Z + (U2 - (p - 9s) (p - +s)y - U4 + t Z (2pZ - 2sp + $9)

S(4V) = *ln
27w I(U2 - tZ)2 - (U2 - (p - 9s) (p - +S)}Z - a4 + t 2 (2pZ - 4sp + 59)

X
(a2 - t y + (U2 - (p + $s) (p - +S)}Z - U4 + t Z (2pZ + 2sp + 2.9)
(U2 - t2)Z + (U2 - (p + $s) (p + +S)}Z - a4 + tz (2p2 + 4sp + Q Z ) (6)

Expansion of the expression in square brackets as a ratio of

two quartics in 2,and assuming that U > s, t or p , so that
powers of a2 less than u6 can be neglected gives

- ( 4 9 + 4pz - 3sZ)d
U8
U8 -(49 +4 2 + 3 s y l-'12
*

By using the inequality again, a further simplificationmay be

made:
I p 3sz
&AV) = - -
2n-w a2
which shows that the variations of t and p have much less
intluence on AV than the parameter s. Whence
6Av
- - 3 9
(7) 1
AV -K 2 I' 0
I
0.5
I
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
lnterprobe spacing s (mm)
This increase in voltage is seen to be independent of the
position of the probes as long as the inequality is satisfied, Figure 3. Resistivity measurement error as a function of
interprobe spacing. Curves plotted for OL = 0.01 nun.
It is equivalent to restricting the position of the probes so
that all four probes lie within a radius of about +U from the
centre of the wafer. It is seen that there is no unique probe setting which is
suitable for all crystal dimensions. However, if the crystal
size can be stated then an optimum value of interprobe
4. Effect of wafer thickness setting can be found.
For wafers whose thickness w is less than 4s the current
flow across the wafer is so small that it has negligible effect
on the potential difference 4 V. References
However, as the wafer thickness is increased, there is an HARGREAVES, J. K., and MILLARD, D., 1962, Brit. J. Appl.
exponentially increasing effect, so that for w = s there would Phys., 1 3 , 2 3 1 4 .
be an apparent 8% increase in resistivity. The exact treat- UHLIR,A., 1955, BellSyst. Tech. J., 34, 105-28.
ment has been derived by Uhlir (1955). VAUGHAN, D.E., 1961, Brit.J. Appl. Phys., 12,414-6.
54