editor's blog
Subscribe Now

The Challenges of Testing MEMS

Last month saw this year’s edition of the MEMS Test and Reliability conference. And there are clearly numerous issues to be addressed. To be clear, that’s not to say, for example, that there are inherent device reliability issues. It’s just that testing and measuring aren’t nearly as obvious for MEMS as they are for ICs.

Two issues in particular caught my eye. The first was the relationship between wafer test and final/packaged test. In the IC world, there are certainly things that you can’t test at the wafer level – true performance being one of them (because the wafer card probes are horrible for super-fast signaling). But things are even tougher with MEMS.

First off, a true test of a mechanical device means mechanical actuation to test the response. And each type of MEMS device has some sort of testing fixture to allow that. “Shakers” or other mechanical contraptions are used both for testing and calibration – when the devices are diced and packaged. But they don’t work for wafers. (I don’t know how much things have changed since I tried reliably aligning 84 probes – a lot at the time – onto pads, but at least then, once they were down, you didn’t even breathe much less shake the damn thing…)

So that means that either you can’t test it or you need some other way of calibrating it. In fact, designers include actuation mechanisms so that they can emulate physical actuation at the wafer level. Some level of calibration at wafer sort is important for final test correlation – which I’ll come back to in a sec.

But before we get to final test, there’s one other major limitation at wafer sort for many MEMS devices: they need an ASIC, and most ASICs are on a separate die. So wafer testing must proceed without that ASIC. That places some significant limitations on what can be done – especially if the ASIC helps clean up a noisy analog signal that will only be made worse by clunky wafer probes. And there’s no real solution to this one in the offing unless you can bring the CMOS and MEMS together – typically envisioned as monolithic integration.

InvenSense has an alternative, with their Nasiri technique. There the CMOS and MEMS are built on separate wafers, but the two wafers are then bonded face-to-face; the “handle” wafer that carries the MEMS devices is then etched back to expose the external connections on the CMOS wafer. So you end up with a wafer that can be probed, and it has both the ASIC and MEMS together. This allows them to test much more at wafer sort, eliminating the extra cost of packaging up and testing dice that will be thrown away.

The other major issue affects not just wafer and final testing, but also final board assembly. These are physical devices, and they respond to physical stresses, and each “situ” is different. During wafer sort, probes press vertically on the wafer. At final test, a test jig or handler somehow grabs the package (exactly how depends on the package type). That results in different stresses on the package, and, unfortunately, the die inside the package is not mechanically isolated from those stresses.

So, especially for any piezoelectrics, you may have a correlation issue between wafer sort and final test. That’s why getting some calibration information at wafer sort is important – that can be used to adjust data acquired at final test.

But that’s not the end of it: that device will eventually be soldered down onto a board or placed in a socket, both of which will place yet different stresses on the device. So the measurements taken at final test won’t necessarily correlate with final in situ measurements, were those to be taken.

And this one, at present, has no known good solution. These are some of the issues that motivate self-calibration, but that has yet to be developed as a commercial solution.

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Jan 17, 2020
[From the last episode: We saw how virtual memory helps resolve the differences between where a compiler thinks things will go in memory and the real memories in a real system.] We'€™ve talked a lot about memory '€“ different kinds of memory, cache memory, heap memory, vi...
Jan 16, 2020
While Samtec started as a connector company with a focus on two-piece, pin-and-socket board stacking systems, High-Speed Board Stacking connectors and High-Speed Cable Assemblies now make up a significant portion of our sales. To support development in this area, in December ...
Jan 16, 2020
Betting on Hydrogen-Powered Cars On-demand DRC within P&R cuts closure time in half for MaxLinear Functional Safety Verification For AV SoC Designs Accelerated With Advanced Tools Automating the pain out of clock domain crossing verification Mentor unpacks LVS and LVL iss...
Jan 16, 2020
This little robot arm continually points to the current location of the International Space Station (ISS)....

Featured Video

RedFit IDC SKEDD Connector

Sponsored by Wurth Electronics and Mouser Electronics

Why attach a header connector to your PCB when you really don’t need one? If you’re plugging a ribbon cable into your board, particularly for a limited-use function such as provisioning, diagnostics, or testing, it can be costly and clunky to add a header connector to your BOM, and introduce yet another component to pick and place. Wouldn’t it be great if you could plug directly into your board with no connector required on the PCB side? In this episode of Chalk Talk, Amelia Dalton chats with Ben Arden from Wurth Electronics about Redfit, a slick new connector solution that plugs directly into standard via holes on your PCB.

Click here for more information about Wurth Electronics REDFIT IDC SKEDD Connector