Intercomparison of SEM, AFM, and electrical linewidths

John S. Villarrubia; Ronald G. Dixson; Samuel N. Jones; Jeremiah R. Lowney; Michael T. Postek Jr.; Richard A. Allen; Michael W. Cresswell

doi:10.1117/12.350846

14 June 1999 Intercomparison of SEM, AFM, and electrical linewidths

John S. Villarrubia, Ronald G. Dixson, Samuel N. Jones, Jeremiah R. Lowney, Michael T. Postek Jr., Richard A. Allen, Michael W. Cresswell

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 3677, Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control for Microlithography XIII; (1999) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.350846
Event: Microlithography '99, 1999, Santa Clara, CA, United States

Abstract

Uncertainty in the locations of line edges dominates the uncertainty budget for high quality sub-micrometer linewidth measurements. For microscopic techniques like scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM), the image of the sharp edge is broadened due to the instrument's non-ideal response. Localizing the true edge position within its broadened image requires a model for the instrument-sample interaction. Ideal left and right edges are mirror images of one another, so any modeling error in the position assignment will have opposite signs for the two types of edges. Linewidth measurements inherently involves such opposite edges and consequent doubling of model errors. Similar considerations apply to electrical critical dimension (ECD) measurement. Although ECD is a non-imaging technique, one must still model the offset between the position of the physical edge and the effective edge of the conducting part of the line. One approach to estimating the reliability of existing models is to compare result when fundamentally different instruments measure the same line. We have begun a project to perform such an intercomparison, and we report here initial results for SEM, AFM, and ECD measurements of sub-micrometer lines in single crystal Si. Edge positions are determined from SEM images using Monte Carlo tracing of electron trajectories to predict the edge shape.In the AFM, we estimate and correct for tip geometry using tools from mathematical morphology. ECD measurements are corrected for band bending in the neighborhood of the edges.

Citation Download Citation

John S. Villarrubia, Ronald G. Dixson, Samuel N. Jones, Jeremiah R. Lowney, Michael T. Postek Jr., Richard A. Allen, and Michael W. Cresswell "Intercomparison of SEM, AFM, and electrical linewidths", Proc. SPIE 3677, Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control for Microlithography XIII, (14 June 1999); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.350846

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available