An accurate method to extract specific contact resistivity using cross-bridge Kelvin resistors

Loh, W.M.; Swirhun, S.E.; Crabbé, E.F.; Saraswat, Krishna C.; Swanson, R.M.

doi:10.1109/edl.1985.26185

Cited by 36 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The actual segment lengths are always larger than the defined ones due to lateral expansion of silicide, ranging from 10 to 20 nm on each side. According to the Scott model the transfer length (L c ) value was extracted using expression (8) and the actual silicide lengths derived from TEM (Fig. 6).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Specific contact resistance measurements of metal-semiconductor junctions

Stavitski

Dal

Wolters

et al. 2006

2006 IEEE International Conference on Microelectronic Test Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our research comprises the manufacturing of test structures to characterize the metal-semiconductor junctions with a number of techniques and materials. An extensive subsequent physical and electrical testing of the junctions is carried out. We present our first results on specific silicide-to-diffusion contact resistance characterization using the known Scott's Transmission Line Model (TLM) and our approach, considering particular geometry, with NiSi and PtSi as the silicides.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Future research will focus on a model with a 2D current distribution for the realized structures. The results will be compared also with different measurement techniques like Kelvin CrossBridge Resistor (KCBR) [7,8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specific contact resistance measurements of metal-semiconductor junctions

Stavitski

Dal

Wolters

et al. 2006

2006 IEEE International Conference on Microelectronic Test Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, CBKR was found to be very sensitive to lateral current crowding around the contact when the contact window is smaller than the underlying layer. Several simulations and correction methods were introduced in order to account for this current crowding effect [3]- [6]. However in the low resistance range, the extracted silicide-to-silicon specific contact resistance values, obtained using CBKR structures, were still orders of magnitude different from the results obtained using other methods [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Cross-Bridge Kelvin Resistor Structures for Reliable Measurement of Low Contact Resistances and Contact Interface Characterization

Stavitski

Klootwijk

Zeijl

et al. 2009

IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manufact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The parasitic factors that strongly influence the measurement accuracy of Cross-Bridge Kelvin Resistor (CBKR) structures for low specific contact resistances ( c ) have been extensively discussed during last few decades and the minimum of the c value, which could be accurately extracted, was estimated. We fabricated a set of various metal-to-metal CBKR structures with different geometries, i.e., shapes and dimensions, to confirm this limit experimentally and to create a method for contact metal-tometal interface characterization. As a result, a model was developed to account for the actual current flow and a method for reliable c extraction was created. This method allowed to characterize metal-to-metal contact interface. It was found that in the case of ideal metal-to-metal contacts, the measured CBKR contact resistance was determined by the dimensions of the two-metal stack in the area of contact and sheet resistances of the metals used.Index Terms-Cross-bridge Kelvin resistor (CBKR), metal-tometal contacts, specific contact resistance.

show abstract

“…It has been shown that, for low values of q c and high sheet resistivities, applying a one-dimensional (1-D) model in exhtracting q c can lead to large errors, and the e ect of current crowding around the contact should be taken into account. In order to derive accurate values of q c (Loh et al 1985), twodimensional (2-D) numerical simulations have to be used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%