Simulated SEM images for resolution measurement

Čižmár, Petr; Vladár, Andrá E.; Ming, Bin; Postek, Michael T.

doi:10.1002/sca.20120

Cited by 42 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, more recent work, geared to speeding up the modeling process, dealt with a much faster approach to image modeling which could generate credible images for testing the distortions described above (4,5,8,9). Therefore, over the years, NIST has carried out a great deal of research into instrument improvements that would negate sources of measurement uncertainty in the particle beam instrumentation.…”

Section: Motion Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 96%

Nanomanufacturing concerns about measurements made in the SEM Part III: vibration and drift

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many advanced manufacturing processes employ scanning electron microscopes (SEM) for on-line critical measurements for process and quality control. This is the third of a series of papers discussing various causes of measurement uncertainty in scanned particle beam instruments, and some of the solutions researched and developed at NIST. Scanned particle beam instruments especially the scanning electron microscope have gone through tremendous evolution to become indispensable tools for many and diverse scientifi c and industrial applications. These improvements have signifi cantly enhanced their performance and made them far easier to operate. But, ease of operation has also fostered operator complacency. In addition, the user-friendliness has reduced the need for extensive operator training. Unfortunately, this has led to the concept that the SEM is just another expensive digital camera or another peripheral device connected to a computer and that all of the issues related to obtaining quality data have been solved. Hence, a person (or company) using these instruments may be lulled into thinking that all of the potential pitfalls have been fully eliminated and they believe everything they see on the micrograph is always correct. But, as described in this and the earlier presentations this may not be the case. The fi rst 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 modelling to understand the actual image formation mechanisms to properly interpret SEM images. The second paper, discussed another major issue confronting the microscopist: specimen contamination and methods of contamination elimination. This third paper, discusses vibration and drift and some useful solutions.

show abstract

Section: Motion Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 96%

Nanomanufacturing concerns about measurements made in the SEM Part III: vibration and drift

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…testing the distortions described above (4,5,8,9). Therefore, over the years, NIST has carried out a great deal of research into instrument improvements that would negate sources of measurement uncertainty in the particle beam instrumentation.…”

Section: Motion Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…This improvement has helped in all modes of SEM, but was especially valuable to low landing energy applications. 4 DFS technology, as a package, also facilitated the development and implementation of real-time TV scan rates, reliable automatic brightness and contrast, and automatic focus and astigmatism control. So, a number of very positive outcomes resulted from the application of DFS technology.…”

Section: The Value and Folly Of Digital Frame Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Workers at NIST have studied this and have developed a succession of computer models coupled to experimental verifi cation which incorporate testing for and diagnosing both vibration and drift (4,5). In addition, computer-based approaches to SEM measurement issues have been developed, all which build to the realization of higher performance instruments and more accurate 3-D SEM metrology.…”

Section: Motion Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? part 3: vibration and drift

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the third of a series of papers discussing various causes of measurement uncertainty in scanned particle beam instruments, and some of the solutions researched and developed at NIST. Scanned particle beam instruments especially the scanning electron microscope (SEM) have gone through tremendous evolution to become indispensable tools for many and diverse scientifi c and industrial applications. These improvements have signifi cantly enhanced their performance and made them far easier to operate. But, ease of operation has also fostered operator complacency. In addition, the user-friendliness has reduced the need for extensive operator training. Unfortunately, this has led to the concept that the SEM is just another expensive digital camera or another peripheral device connected to a computer and that all of the issues related to obtaining quality data have been solved. Hence, a person (or company) using these instruments may be lulled into thinking that all of the potential pitfalls have been fully eliminated and they believe everything they see on the micrograph is always correct. But, as described in this and the earlier presentations this may not be the case. The fi rst 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 modelling to understand the actual image formation mechanisms to properly interpret SEM images. The second paper, discussed another major issue confronting the microscopist: specimen contamination and methods of contamination elimination. This third paper, discusses vibration and drift and some useful solutions. INTRODUCTIONScanning electron microscopes are used extensively in nanomanufacturing characterization, metrology and process control. Two earlier papers (1, 2), discussed some of the potential issues related to signal generation in the SEM, instrument calibration, electron beam interactions, and the need for modelling to understand the actual image generation. All these were summed together in a discussion of how these issues effect measurements made with the instrument. The second paper, discussed another major issue confronting the microscopist: which is specimen contamination and methods of contamination reduction and elimination. This third paper, discusses the additional components of measurement uncertainty induced by vibration and drift and some possible solutions to these issues. Over the years, several workers at NIST have done a great deal of research into these issues in order to improve the fundamental metrology with particle beam instruments and some of this work is reviewed and discussed here.

show abstract

“…[9] The evaluation of the accuracy of these methods requires serial test SEM images [6,10] with varied parameters, such as structured grains and background, edge effect, blurring, vibration, and noise. Cizmar et al [10] have generated simulated SEM images for the most commonly used samples, e.g. gold-on-carbon sample, to include the above parameters by using a series of equations and adjustable parameters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Monte Carlo simulation study on the image resolution in scanning electron microscopy

Mao

Ding

2010

Surface & Interface Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The resolution of the scanning electron microscope limited by the beam-sample interaction is studied by Monte Carlo simulation. The simulation model is based on the full Penn algorithm for electron inelastic scattering and the associated secondary electron generation as well as on a constructive solid geometry modeling of a complex sample structure. The line-scan profiles for gold nanoparticles of different diameters on a carbon substrate are obtained in the simulation. The gap method and contrast-to-gradient (C-G) method performed for two separated particles of the same size and different sizes are considered to determine the resolution. Both methods are applied to the simulated images. A comparison on the obtained resolutions performed for the different sample topographies shows that the gap resolution depends excessively on the topography by the shading effect and gap method underestimates the influence of probe size, while C-G method overestimates this influence.

show abstract

Simulated SEM images for resolution measurement

Cited by 42 publications

References 10 publications

Nanomanufacturing concerns about measurements made in the SEM Part III: vibration and drift

Nanomanufacturing concerns about measurements made in the SEM Part III: vibration and drift

Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? part 3: vibration and drift

A Monte Carlo simulation study on the image resolution in scanning electron microscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About