Literature DB >> 27452278

Comparison of Electron Imaging Modes for Dimensional Measurements in the Scanning Electron Microscope.

Michael T Postek1, András E Vladár1, John S Villarrubia1, Atsushi Muto2.   

Abstract

Dimensional measurements from secondary electron (SE) images were compared with those from backscattered electron (BSE) and low-loss electron (LLE) images. With the commonly used 50% threshold criterion, the lines consistently appeared larger in the SE images. As the images were acquired simultaneously by an instrument with the capability to operate detectors for both signals at the same time, the differences cannot be explained by the assumption that contamination or drift between images affected the SE, BSE, or LLE images differently. Simulations with JMONSEL, an electron microscope simulator, indicate that the nanometer-scale differences observed on this sample can be explained by the different convolution effects of a beam with finite size on signals with different symmetry (the SE signal's characteristic peak versus the BSE or LLE signal's characteristic step). This effect is too small to explain the >100 nm discrepancies that were observed in earlier work on different samples. Additional modeling indicates that those discrepancies can be explained by the much larger sidewall angles of the earlier samples, coupled with the different response of SE versus BSE/LLE profiles to such wall angles.

Entities:  

Keywords:  JMONSEL; backscattered electrons; electron beam modeling; low loss electrons; metrology; secondary electrons

Year:  2016        PMID: 27452278      PMCID: PMC5113026          DOI: 10.1017/S1431927616011430

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Microsc Microanal        ISSN: 1431-9276            Impact factor:   4.127


  6 in total

1.  Application of the low-loss scanning electron microscope image to integrated circuit technology. Part 1--Applications to accurate dimension measurements.

Authors:  M T Postek; A E Vladár; O C Wells; J L Lowney
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.932

2.  Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 2.

Authors:  Michael T Postek; András E Vladár; Kavuri P Purushotham
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 1.932

3.  Modeling for accurate dimensional scanning electron microscope metrology: then and now.

Authors:  Michael T Postek; András E Vladár
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 1.932

4.  Scanning electron microscope measurement of width and shape of 10nm patterned lines using a JMONSEL-modeled library.

Authors:  J S Villarrubia; A E Vladár; B Ming; R J Kline; D F Sunday; J S Chawla; S List
Journal:  Ultramicroscopy       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 2.689

5.  Does your SEM really tell the truth?--How would you know? Part 1.

Authors:  Michael T Postek; András E Vladár
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 1.932

6.  Nanomanufacturing Concerns about Measurements Made in the SEM Part IV: Charging and its Mitigation.

Authors:  Michael T Postek; András E Vladár
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2015-09-20
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.