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

Postek, Michael T.; Vladár, András

doi:10.1002/sca.20238

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 56 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This process may be too involved or unnecessary for some applications, but to claim accuracy in an SEM-based dimensional measurement, modeling is essential. [21] 3.0 Conclusion…”

Section: Electron Beam-sample Interaction Modelingmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nanomanufacturing concerns about measurements made in the SEM I: imaging and its measurement

Postek

Vladár

2013

SPIE Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The high resolution of the SEM is especially useful for qualitative and quantitative applications for both nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing. But, should users be concerned about the imaging and measurements made with this instrument? Perhaps one should or, at a minimum, understand some of the uncertainties associated with those measurements. It is likely that one of the first questions asked when the first scanning electron micrograph was ever taken was: "...how big is that?" The quality of that answer has improved a great deal over the past few years, especially since SEMs are being used as a primary tool on semiconductor processing lines to monitor the manufacturing processes. These needs prompted a rapid evolution of the instrument and its capabilities. Over the past 20 years or so, instrument manufacturers, through this substantial semiconductor industry investment of research and development (R&D) money, have vastly improved the performance of these instruments. All users have benefitted from this investment, especially where metrology with an SEM is concerned. But, how good are these data? This presentation will discuss a sub-set of the most important aspects and larger issues associated with imaging and metrology with the SEM. Every user should know, and understand these issues before any critical quantitative work is attempted.

show abstract

“…This process may be too involved or unnecessary for some applications, but to claim accuracy in an SEM-based dimensional measurement, modeling is essential. [21] 3.0 Conclusion…”

Section: Electron Beam-sample Interaction Modelingmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Unfortunately, that is not the case, and many of the reasons for the importance of modeling have been reviewed [21]. Modeling permits a clear understanding of the numerous factors that comprise and contribute to imaging and measurement uncertainty in an SEM.…”

Section: Electron Beam-sample Interaction Modelingmentioning

confidence: 98%

Nanomanufacturing concerns about measurements made in the SEM I: imaging and its measurement

Postek

Vladár

2013

SPIE Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another component of the signal originates from interactions of the high-energy BSE with instrument components [50]. However, obtaining reasonably accurate results requires care and an understanding of the principles of the process.…”

Section: Electron Interaction In Thick Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Figure 7.13, an idealised scheme adapted from Postek and Vladar shows the steps involved in MC modelling [50].…”

Section: Quantitative X-ray Microanalysis -Metrologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Electron-Based Imaging Techniques

Adams¹,

Barbante²

2015

Chemical Imaging Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The first paper in the series discussed signal generation, instrument calibration, electron beam interactions, and the need for modeling to understand the mechanisms of the actual image generation [1]. Modeling has been discussed at greater length in other papers [4-5]. …”

Section: 0 Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Postek

Vladár

2015

SPIE Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 scientifc 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.

show abstract

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

Cited by 22 publications

References 56 publications

Nanomanufacturing concerns about measurements made in the SEM I: imaging and its measurement

Nanomanufacturing concerns about measurements made in the SEM I: imaging and its measurement

Electron-Based Imaging Techniques

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About