Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 4: Charging and its mitigation

Michael T. Postek; András E. Vladár

doi:10.1117/12.2195344

21 October 2015 Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 4: Charging and its mitigation

Michael T. Postek, András E. Vladár

Proceedings Volume 9636, Scanning Microscopies 2015; 963605 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2195344
Event: SPIE Scanning Microscopies, 2015, Monterey, California, United States

Abstract

This is the fourth part of a series of tutorial papers discussing various causes of measurement uncertainty in scanned particle beam instruments, and some of the solutions researched and developed at NIST and other research institutions. Scanned particle beam instruments, especially the scanning electron microscope (SEM), have gone through tremendous evolution to become indispensable tools for many and diverse scientific and industrial applications. These improvements have significantly enhanced their performance and made them far easier to operate. But, the ease of operation has also fostered operator complacency. In addition, the user-friendliness has reduced the apparent need for extensive operator training. Unfortunately, this has led to the idea that the SEM is just another expensive "digital camera" or another peripheral device connected to a computer and that all of the problems in obtaining good quality images and data have been solved. Hence, one using these instruments may be lulled into thinking that all of the potential pitfalls have been fully eliminated and believing that, everything one sees on the micrograph is always correct. But, as described in this and the earlier papers, this may not be the case. Care must always be taken when reliable quantitative data are being sought. The first paper in this series discussed some of the issues related to signal generation in the SEM, including instrument calibration, electron beam-sample interactions and the need for physics-based modeling to understand the actual image formation mechanisms to properly interpret SEM images. The second paper has discussed another major issue confronting the microscopist: specimen contamination and methods to eliminate it. The third paper discussed mechanical vibration and stage drift and some useful solutions to mitigate the problems caused by them, and here, in this the fourth contribution, the issues related to specimen "charging" and its mitigation are discussed relative to dimensional metrology.

Citation Download Citation

Michael T. Postek and András E. Vladár "Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 4: Charging and its mitigation", Proc. SPIE 9636, Scanning Microscopies 2015, 963605 (21 October 2015); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2195344

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