Conventional vs. model-based measurement of patterned line widths from scanning electron microscopy profiles

基于扫描电子显微镜轮廓的图案化线宽的传统测量方法与基于模型的测量方法对比

阅读:2

Abstract

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) is a practical tool to determine the dimensions of nanometer-scale features. Conventional width measurements use arbitrary criteria, e.g., a 50 % threshold crossing, to assign feature boundaries in the measured SEM intensity profile. To estimate the errors associated with such a procedure, we have simulated secondary electron signals from a suite of line shapes consisting of 30 nm tall silicon lines with varying width, sidewall angle, and corner rounding. Four different inelastic scattering models were employed in Monte Carlo simulations of electron transport to compute secondary electron image intensity profiles for each of the shapes. The 4 models were combinations of dielectric function theory with either the single-pole approximation (SPA) or the full Penn algorithm (FPA), and either with or without Auger electron emission. Feature widths were determined either by the conventional threshold method or by the model-based library (MBL) method, which is a fit of the simulated profiles to the reference model (FPA + Auger). On the basis of these comparisons we estimate the error in the measured width of such features by the conventional procedure to be as much as several nanometers. A 1 nm difference in the size of, e.g., a nominally 10 nm transistor gate would substantially alter its electronic properties. Thus, the conventional measurements do not meet the contemporary requirements of the semiconductor industry. In contrast, MBL measurements employing models with varying accuracy differed one from another by less than 1 nm. Thus, a MBL measurement is preferable in the nanoscale domain.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。