See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260823912

Accuracy and traceability in dimensional measurements

Article  in  Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering · June 1998
DOI: 10.1117/12.308758

CITATIONS READS
7 134

1 author:

James E. Potzick
National Institute of Standards and Technology
54 PUBLICATIONS   219 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James E. Potzick on 12 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Accuracy and Traceability in Dimensional Measurements
James Potzick
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899

While the importance of the concepts of measurement accuracy and measurement traceability
has long been recognized, they have not always been applied in a consistent or rigorous
manner. In 1993 the International Organization for Standards (ISO) published two documents
which establish consistent definitions of these and other metrology terms and provide an un-
ambiguous way to calculate measurement uncertainty. These documents are widely accepted
in the international metrology community. Vendors and buyers of metrology tools and stan-
dards will benefit from the improved communication that results from using this standardized
metrology vocabulary.
Dimensional measurements of importance to microlithography include feature sizes and fea-
ture placement on photomasks and wafers, overlay eccentricities, defect and particle sizes on
masks and wafers, step heights, and many others. A common element in these measurements
is that the object sizes and required measurement uncertainties are often on the order of the
wavelength of light or less. This can lead to interesting challenges for certain applications
where measurement traceability is desirable.
The necessary and sufficient conditions for traceability will be outlined, and some examples
will be given.

KEY WORDS measurement, accuracy, measurement uncertainty, measurement traceability

Introduction Measurements are an important part
of product development and manufacturing. They
are needed for developing specifications, for ven-
dor/buyer communication, and for ensuring that
products meet specifications. Measurements are
also needed for process monitoring for either opti-
mization or stability, and for process modeling.
All measurements are subject to unknown errors.
When different measurements are to be compared
with each other, such as product measurements and
those leading to product specifications, they must
be traceable to a common standard through a chain
of comparisons. This makes the comparison pro-
cess differential and removes or assesses the ef-
fects of measurement errors. The common stan-
dard can be a local artifact standard, a national
standard, or a defined base unit (e.g., the meter).
Traceability to a national standard or to a defined
Proceedings of SPIE 23nd International Symposium on Mi-
crolithography, vol. 3332-57 (1998).
base unit may be needed if a part’s function is di-
mensionally dependent, for a high confidence level
in long term stability, to compare experiment with
theory, for consistent measurements between dis-
tant manufacturing sites, or for comparing prod-
ucts from different manufacturers. It provides a
basis for comparing measurements that is mutually
acceptable to all parties involved in a transaction,
for resolving differences between buyer and seller,
to ensure compliance with legal requirements
(such as by government agencies or ISO 9000),
and for resolving differences between two trace-
ability chains. It may not be needed, however, for
many manufacturing purposes, such as process
monitoring.
Measurements of an object’s size (e.g., linewidth)
and of feature placement (or the center-to-center
pitch of two similar objects) are important dimen-
sional measurements in microlithography. This
paper discusses the metrological meaning of mea-
surement traceability as defined by the Internation-

Accuracy and Traceability in Dimensional Measurements, page 1 4-27-98, 10:02

al Organization for Standards (ISO), with applica-
tion to these dimensional measurements.
Definitions When evaluating or comparing mea-
surements it is important that the metrology terms
used have well defined and commonly understood
meanings. The following definitions of metrology
terms are taken from the ISO publication Interna-
tional Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in
Metrology1 and are accepted by national measure-
ment laboratories around the world:
accuracy of measurement closeness of the agreement be-
tween the result of a measurement and a true value of the
measurand.
error (of measurement) result of a measurement minus the
true value of the measurand.
true value (of a quantity) value consistent with the definition
of a given particular quantity.
systematic error mean that would result from an infinite
number of measurements of the same measurand carried out
under the same repeatability conditions minus the true value
random error result of a measurement minus the mean that
would result from an infinite number of measurements of the
same measurand carried out under the same repeatability
conditions.
uncertainty of measurement parameter associated with the
result of a measurement that characterizes the dispersion of
the values that could reasonably be attributed to the
measurand.
traceability property of the result of a measurement or the
value of a standard whereby it can be related to stated refer-
ences, usually through national or international standards,
through an unbroken chain of comparisons all having stated
uncertainties.
repeatability closeness of the agreement between the results
of successive measurements of the same measurand carried
out under the same conditions of measurement.
reproducibility closeness of the agreement between the re-
sults of measurements of the same measurand carried out
under changed conditions of measurement.
Here are the meanings of some additional terms for
the purposes of this paper:
instrument scale the internal scale of a measuring instrument
as embedded in its output data.
scale factor instrument scale correction factor.
artifact scale a physical artifact with an array of fabricated
parallel lines or other marks whose relative positions are
calibrated.
feature placement the position of the center of a feature on a
Accuracy and Traceability in Dimensional Measurements, page 2
wafer or photomask relative to the origin of a coordinate sys-
tem on the substrate.
pitch the center-to-center distance between two similar fea-
tures; same as feature placement.
feature size the distance between the right edge and the left
edge (or top and bottom) of a feature.
linewidth same as feature size.
length feature placement or feature size.
Measurement uncertainty Every measurement
provides an opportunity for measurement error.
When measuring a continuous variable like length,
the probability of zero error is zero. When mea-
suring a discrete variable, as when counting ob-
jects, the probability of zero error is finite. These
errors must be considered when comparing mea-
surements for traceability.
The error of a measurement is the difference be-
tween the measurement result and the true value; it
is the sum of random and systematic errors. The
random error is the result of a single measurement
minus the mean of an infinite number of repeated
measurements; i.e., the part of the error due only to
measurement-to-measurement variability, or mea-
surement noise. The systematic error is the mean
of an infinite number of measurements minus the
true value; i.e., the error remaining after the mea-
surement noise has been removed. The systematic
error is comprised of error components, i.e, contri-
butions from different error sources.
The error in a measurement is not known because
the true value is not known; otherwise there would
be no need to make the measurement. Consequent-
ly the quality of a measurement is best expressed
not by the unknowable error, but by the uncertainty
of the measurement result. This uncertainty arises
from the likelihoods, or probability distributions,
of the possible errors which may occur during the
measurement.2 Probability is a mathematical mea-
sure of ignorance; since the value of an error com-
ponent is not known, its probability distribution
describes what is known about it. The separate
contributions of these possible errors to the mea-
surement uncertainty are sometimes referred to as
uncertainty components. A measurement without
4-27-98, 10:02

Origin Feature
fiducial position being
mark Scale measured
uncertainty
Set of
measured values
L1, L2, etc.
{
Instrument scale
interferometer, glass scale,
CCD pixel array, etc.
Measuring instrument
SEM, optical microscope,
AFM, etc.
Photomask
FIGURE 1 Measurement repeatability and scale calibra-
tion are two of the uncertainty components encountered
in measuring the relative placement of two marks on a
photomask.
some estimate of its uncertainty is meaningless.
The measurement uncertainty is a single number
derived from these probability distributions, and is
proportional to the square root of the sum of their
variances. Measurement error and uncertainty can
be expressed in the same units, but the concepts are
entirely different. A measurement error may be
zero, while the uncertainty is nonzero because one
does not know that the error is zero.
The standard uncertainty of an error component is
the square root of its variance (or its standard de-
viation). The combined standard uncertainty is the
square root of the sum of the variances and cova-
riances of all of the error distributions, weighted
according to how the measurement result varies
with changes in these quantities. The expanded
uncertainty describes an interval about the mea-
surement result expected to encompass a large
fraction of the distribution of values that could rea-
sonable be attributed to the measurand.2
By convention in the international metrology com-
munity the expanded uncertainty is 2 times the
combined standard uncertainty,3 corresponding to
a 95% confidence interval if the error distributions
are normal. The multiplier (2) is called the cover-
age factor; another factor may be used (3 is popu-
lar) if it is explicitly stated.
As an example, consider the measurement of the dis-
tance between two chrome marks on a photomask, or
the position of one mark relative to a similar fiducial
Accuracy and Traceability in Dimensional Measurements, page 3
mark at the coordinate system origin, as in Fig. 1. This
is a feature position, or pitch, measurement. An SEM
(scanning electron microscope), optical microscope,
SPM (scanning probe microscope, like atomic force or
near field scanning optical), or other instrument might
be used.
Two of the uncertainty components arise from mea-
surement repeatability and instrument scale factor
calibration. If the mean of a set of repeated measure-
ments is Lmeas and the standard deviation σ, and the
instrument manufacturer specifies that the scale cali-
bration has an ISO (expanded) uncertainty of Uscale (at
2 σ), and there are other uncertainty components with
2σ ISO uncertainty Uother, then the expanded measure-
ment uncertainty would be
U = 2√[σ2 + (Uscale/2)2 + (Uother/2)2],
and the measurement result is expressed as Lmeas ± U.
The term "uncertainty" in the remaining text is in-
tended to mean expanded uncertainty unless oth-
erwise noted. Standard uncertainties will be de-
noted as lower case u and expanded uncertainties
upper case U.
An uncertainty component which is evaluated by
the statistical analysis of a series of observations,
like σ in the example, is called Type A. All others,
like Uscale in the example, are Type B.
A Type A evaluation of uncertainty is simply the
standard deviation of a set of repeated
measurements. If a measurement is repeated n
times with readings x1,...,xn, then mean value is
〈x〉 = (1/n) ∑xi, i = 1,...,n,
the standard deviation (of the mean) is given by
2 2
σ = ∑(〈x〉 - xi ) /(n(n - 1)),
and the Type A uncertainty u is the standard devi-
ation σ.
In the example the Type B uncertainty was inher-
ited from the manufacturer and did not have to be
evaluated by the user, but this is not always the
case. A Type B evaluation of an uncertainty com-
ponent is the square root of the variance of the
estimated probability distribution of that error.
This distribution is unknown and must be evaluat-
ed using all available sources of information. If the
probability distribution of an error x is expressed
by the probability density function p(x), normal-
4-27-98, 10:02
 -a
Linewidth
Linewidth
bounding
Chrome
Substrate
FIGURE 2 A Type B uncertainty in measuring linewidth
can arise from the fact that the edge of the object is not
well defined.
ized to unity,
∫p(x) dx = 1, - ∞ < x < ∞,
then the expectation value of x is
〈x〉 = ∫x p(x) dx,
and the variance of the probability distribution is
u2(x) = ∫(x - 〈x〉)2 p(x) dx.
For example, if one can say only that some error y
is between the bounds ±y0 and no more is known
about it, then the probability distribution is
rectangular,
p(y) = 1/(2y0) for -y0 < y < y0
and p(y) = 0 otherwise,
2 2
and the variance is u (y) = y0 /3. [Ref 2]
A Type A or Type B uncertainty component is the
square root of the variance of the statistical distri-
bution or probability distribution of its measure-
ment error respectively. The measurement uncer-
tainty is 2 times the root-sum-square of all of the
Type A and Type B uncertainty components. If
there are k uncorrelated uncertainty components,
then the ISO measurement uncertainty is
U = 2√∑uj2, j = 1,...,k.
The probability distributions of the random and
systematic errors are treated in the same way. The
only difference is that the random distribution is
represented by a discrete set of data and the sys-
tematic distribution is continuous and is inferred
from other factors.
In the example, suppose the substrate temperature had
not been measured, but it can be estimated to be T±δT.
Accuracy and Traceability in Dimensional Measurements, page 4
+a
Linewidth Pitch
Edge Chrome
box Substrate
FIGURE 3 Top to bottom edge runout may have a benign
effect on pitch measurements, but can add serious uncer-
tainty to linewidth measurements.
Then the measured length could differ from the length
Lstd at some standard temperature Tstd by
Lmeas = Lstd + ∆T CTE Lstd
Lstd = Lmeas/(1 + ∆T CTE)
≈ Lmeas(1 - ∆T CTE)
where ∆T = T - Tstd and CTE is the coefficient of ther-
mal expansion of the substrate. A temperature data set
with a statistical distribution is not available, so the
probability distribution of the temperature must be
used. If δT is the square root of the variance of the
distribution of possible temperatures then the tempera-
ture uncertainty u(T) = δT. The temperature correction
is
∆L = ∆T CTE Lmeas,
and its uncertainty is
u(L)temp = u(T) CTE Lmeas.
The length is
Lstd = Lmeas + ∆L,
and
U(Lstd) = 2√[σ2 + u(L)scale2 + u(L)temp2 + u(L)other2]
On the other hand, if a set of temperature measure-
ments Ti had been obtained, then the same procedure
would be used, with T = 〈Ti〉 and u(T) = σ(Ti).
-6
The CTE of quartz is 0.5×10 /°C. If ∆T = (5±2) °C (2σ)
and Lstd = 10 µm, then ∆L = 0.025 nm and U(L)temp =
0.005 nm, which may not be significant, but if Lstd =
10 cm, then ∆L = 250 nm and U(L)temp = 50 nm.
Sometimes additional measurement uncertainty
arises from an inappropriate definition for the mea-
surand (see the definition above for true value) or
imperfections in the artifact being measured. Fig-
ure 2 shows an artist’s rendition of a chrome pho-
tomask line as seen in a SEM image. Since there is
no universally accepted definition for the edge of
4-27-98, 10:02
this line, one can only say that "the edge" can lie
anywhere inside the bounding box with equal
probability, and the expectation value of the edge
position is the center of the bounding box. This
leads to a Type B uncertainty of u = a/√3, or U =
1.15a (typically 20 nm-30 nm for chrome photo-
masks) for each edge. The combined effect of the
two edges depends on the right-edge/left-edge cor-
relation of the irregularities as well as their
magnitudes.
Such edge irregularities usually have only second
order effects on pitch measurements because their
trapezoidal near-symmetry diminishes their effect
on centerline definition, but they can add serious
uncertainty to linewidth measurements (Fig. 3).
This uncertainty component can be reduced con-
siderably for photomask measurements by defin-
ing photomask linewidth in a way more meaning-
ful to its effect in microlithography.4
This section is meant to provide only a brief over-
view of the concepts of calculating measurement
uncertainty. Many details have been ignored, es-
pecially sensitivity coefficients and correlation
coefficients. A far more comprehensive discussion
and many other details and examples can be found
in Ref. 2.
Measurement modeling SEMs, SPMs, and opti-
cal microscopes are popular tools for measuring
feature sizes and feature placement on photomasks
and wafers. Confocal, ultraviolet, holographic,
and other techniques can extend the useful optical
linewidth measurement range to meet the needs of
future generations of integrated circuits. In princi-
ple, if a feature can be printed optically, it can be
measured optically.
These instruments produce an image of the object
being measured, and the measurement data are de-
rived from measurements made on the image.5
Calibration of the image scale was discussed
above. However, the image of a three dimensional
object produced by a metrology microscope is
highly dependent on the topography and material
compositions of the object and substrate. This im-
age depends additionally on the illumination
Accuracy and Traceability in Dimensional Measurements, page 5
wavelength and the optical parameters of an opti-
cal microscope, or electron beam energy, collec-
tion geometry, and other operating parameters of a
SEM. These effects are sometimes highly
nonlinear. Deducing the size of the object−its lin-
ewidth or height−from this image requires knowl-
edge of these parameters as well as a model of the
microscope image formation process. For exam-
ple, the optical image of a photoresist line on a
wafer can depend strongly on the resist thickness
and index of refraction, as well as wafer reflectivi-
ty and the resist linewidth, and on the microscope
operating parameters, and the SEM image can de-
pend on the resist thickness and linewidth as well
as on the materials present in the resist and sub-
strate and on beam energy and charging conditions.
The linewidth inferred from the image further de-
pends on the algorithm used to analyze the image.
Measurement uncertainty components can arise
from the interpretation of this image in addition to
the effects of image scale calibration and image
repeatability.
Even though this SEM or optical image can be
modeled, it may be impractical to measure all of
the necessary object parameters required to model
the image of every different object to be measured.
Furthermore, in order to evaluate the uncertainty of
a linewidth measurement, the uncertainties of the
measured parameter values must be evaluated and
their effects on linewidth measurement uncertainty
must be ascertained.
Useful optical and SEM image formation models
for different microscope configurations are com-
monly available. A possible way to address the
modeling parameter problem is to use these models
to investigate the effects of parameter variation on
the images of common classes of linewidth ob-
jects, such as developed resist on silicon. Robust
algorithms can be sought for deducing the line-
width from the image. More importantly, "islands
of tolerance" in the parameter space can be sought
where the linewidth uncertainty can be said to be
within a specified limit if the parameters and their
corresponding measurement uncertainties are
4-27-98, 10:02
within their specified limits. This can reduce the
need for measuring the object parameters for every BIPM
linewidth measurement. A map of closed regions
in the parameter space within which the measured
speed of light ≡ 1 sec ≡
linewidth uncertainty for these objects is bounded 299 792 458 9 192 631 770
m/sec periods Cs-133
and small enough to be useful could be a practical
tool for quantifying the image interpretation com-
definition NIST
ponent of feature size measurement uncertainty. of the Linescale
meter Interferometer Artifact scale
Traceability A measurement is traceable (in a
metrology context, not necessarily in a legal con-
text) if it can be related to a specified standard with I-stabilized
Zeeman
stabilized
HeNe laser
documented uncertainty. That is, the uncertainty in HeNe laser Measuring
instrument
each link in the chain of comparisons and measure-
ments back to the standard has been evaluated and Laser
frequency
taken into account. Traceability does not mean the
measurement uncertainty is small, only that it is Zeeman
I-stabilized stabilized
completely documented. The ultimate length stan- HeNe laser HeNe laser
wavelength wavelength Measured object
dard accepted by international agreement is the
definition of the meter. Traceability to the Nation- FIGURE 4 Possible traceability chain from the definition
al Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or of the meter to measurement of feature placement on a
another national standard laboratory is one way to photomask.
achieve traceability to the meter, but not the only
this laser of U(wavelength)/wavelength ≈ 5×10-11.
way.
[Ref 7]
The meter is defined by BIPM (Bureau Interna-
A Zeeman stabilized HeNe laser is commonly used
tional des Poids et Mesures) by international con-
as a more convenient wavelength standard to mea-
sensus as the length of the path traveled by light in
sure lengths, using an optical interferometer
vacuum during the time interval of 1/299 792 458
arrangement. One way to make the measurement
of a second. This number effectively defines the
traceable is to compare the wavelength of this laser
speed of light in vacuum. The interval of the sec-
to an iodine-stabilized HeNe reference laser, re-
ond is defined as the duration of 9 192 631 770
sulting in a vacuum wavelength uncertainty for the
periods of the ground state hyperfine transition of
Zeeman stabilized laser typically on the order of
Cs-133.6
10-7 or better. The wavelength in the laboratory
Since this definition for the meter is inconvenient must be corrected for the index of refraction of air,
to realize in a laboratory environment, a traceable which in turn depends on the pressure, tempera-
artifact standard is usually used. The iodine stabi- ture, and composition of the air.
lized HeNe laser has excellent frequency stability
At NIST, length scale artifacts are frequently cali-
and is sometimes used as a traceable wavelength
brated with the NIST Linescale Interferometer,8
reference. Its frequency (~474×1012 Hz) has been
which uses a Zeeman stabilized HeNe interferom-
measured in a manner traceable to the second by
eter laser, which in turn has been calibrated with an
comparing it to the Cesium clock (~9.193×109 Hz)
iodine stabilized HeNe laser whose wavelength is
through heterodyne down conversion techniques.
traceable to the definition of the meter as described
Its vacuum wavelength is then the defined speed of
above. Such a sequence of length comparisons is
light divided by its measured frequency. This pro-
called a traceability chain. See Fig. 4. Each link
cess yields a wavelength relative uncertainty for
adds some amount of uncertainty to the final

Accuracy and Traceability in Dimensional Measurements, page 6 4-27-98, 10:02

measurement. The interferometer laser wave-
length is not the only factor affecting length mea-
surement uncertainty (nor usually the largest). The
index of refraction of the air, temperature effects,
Abbé errors, target detection ambiguities, proxim-
ity effects, alignment errors, and measurement
noise all must be considered.
As the United States’ primary pitch calibration in-
strument in the range from 1 m and below, every
conceivable source of error in the Linescale Inter-
ferometer has been thoroughly characterized, and
it has a long history of international comparisons
with other length calibration systems.9
Referring to the example once again, a convenient way
to calibrate the instrument scale is to use an artifact
scale, such as a photomask with an array of parallel
lines, which has been calibrated on the NIST Linescale
Interferometer. The artifact scale calibration uncertain-
-7
ty would then be about Uart = 10 L + 2 nm, or
Uart = 2 nm over a 10 µm range, and
Uart = 7 nm over a 10 cm range.
If the instrument has repeatability of 6 nm (2 σ, as usu-
al), then the instrument scale uncertainty is
Uscale = 2√(σ2 + uart 2),
or Uscale = 6.3 nm at 10 µm, and
Uscale = 9.2 nm at 10 cm.
After calibration the instrument repeatability again af-
fects the measurement on the photomask, resulting in
uncertainty from these two components of
U = 2√(σ2 + uscale 2),
or U = 8.7 nm at 10 µm, and
U = 11 nm at 10 cm.
Temperature control is important for measurements at
10 cm.
NIST does not define nor enforce traceability ex-
cept in its NVLAP (see next section) laboratory
accreditation program. Moreover, NIST does not
determine what must be done to comply with an-
other party’s contract or regulation calling for such
traceability. However, NIST can and does provide
technical advice on how to make measurements
consistent with national standards.10
Laboratory accreditation Evaluation of mea-
surement uncertainty requires a thorough under-
standing of the measurement process and all of the
Accuracy and Traceability in Dimensional Measurements, page 7
possible errors. An understanding of the measure-
ment process is needed for developing a valid
measurement protocol. There is no common recipe
for doing this for diverse types of measurement.
As an aid to assuring measurement quality in cali-
bration laboratories NIST administers the National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NV-
LAP). NVLAP accredits public and private labo-
ratories based on evaluation of their technical
qualifications and competence to carry out specific
calibrations or tests.
Calibration laboratories are accredited by NVLAP
for compliance with the general requirements of
ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the
competence of calibration and testing laborato-
ries, and ANSI/NCSL Z540-1, Calibration Labo-
ratories and Measuring and Test Equipment -
General Requirements. NVLAP accreditation is
available to commercial laboratories; manufactur-
ers’ in-house laboratories; university laboratories;
and federal, state, and local government
laboratories.
NVLAP provides an unbiased third party evalua-
tion and recognition of performance, as well as
expert technical guidance to upgrade laboratory
performance. NVLAP accreditation signifies that a
laboratory has demonstrated that it operates in ac-
cordance with NVLAP requirements in the follow-
ing areas: accommodation and environment; cali-
bration and test methods; certificates and reports;
complaints; equipment and reference materials;
handling of calibration and test items; measure-
ment traceability and calibration; organization and
management; outside support services and sup-
plies; personnel; quality system, audit and review;
records; and subcontracting. NVLAP accreditation
does not imply any guarantee (certification) of lab-
oratory performance or test/calibration data; it is
solely a finding of laboratory competence. A labo-
ratory may cite its accredited status and use the
NVLAP logo on reports, stationery, and in busi-
ness and trade publications provided that this use
does not imply product certification.11
4-27-98, 10:02
Traceable pitch standards from NIST Several
artifact pitch standards whose calibrations are
traceable to the meter are (or soon will be) avail-
able from NIST for calibrating instrument scales in
the 0.2 µm to 10 000 µm range.12
SRM 473, 475, 476 Standard Reference Materials
(SRMs) were developed for use in calibrating op-
tical microscopes used to measure linewidths on
photomasks. Linewidth uncertainties are about
40 nm-50 nm and pitch uncertainties are about
10 nm.
SRM 47313 contains antireflecting chrome patterns
on a nominal 5 in. × 5 in. × 0.09 in. (127 mm ×
127 mm × 2.3 mm) quartz substrate. Certified
line- and space-widths range from 0.5 µm to 30
µm. Pitch patterns include 30 lines with 1 µm
line/space, and others to 70 µm.
SRM 475 Antireflecting chrome on quartz, 2.5 in.
× 2.5 in. × 0.06 in. (63.5 × 63.5 × 1.5 mm). Certi-
fied line- and space-widths from 0.9 µm to
10.8 µm. Pitch patterns: 10 lines with 1 µm lines
and spaces, 10 lines 2 µm lines and spaces, and
others.
SRM 476 Same as SRM 475, but in bright chrome
on glass.
SRM 280014 (not yet available) consists of sym-
metrical nested linear pitch patterns with calibrated
pitches (line-to-line spacing) in decade ranges
from 1 µm to 10 mm. An array of parallel lines is
printed along one direction in the center of a quartz
microscope slide (25 mm × 75 mm × 2.3 mm). The
lines are etched in antireflecting chrome on a clear
background to facilitate use in optical microscopes
using either transmission mode or reflection mode
illumination.
SRM 484 is an artifact to calibrate the magnifica-
tion of SEMs. This standard is fabricated by elec-
troplating alternate layers of nickel and gold onto a
substrate of a Monel sheet metal. The plate is then
diced, and the individual pieces are mounted on
edge in a holder. Each sample is metallographical-
ly polished to obtain a smooth surface and to reveal
gold lines. Each sample is individually measured
Accuracy and Traceability in Dimensional Measurements, page 8
by a metrology SEM integrated with a HeNe laser
interferometer. The range of spacings is from
0.5 µm to 50 µm, and the expanded uncertainties,
based on the ISO format (2 sigma), are 13 nm for
0.5 µm spacings and 167 nm for 50 µm spacings.
SRM 209015 (not yet available) is intended prima-
rily for use in calibrating the magnification scale of
an SEM over a wide range of magnifications, from
less than 100× to greater than 300 000×. It con-
tains structures in both x and y dimensions, ranging
in nominal pitch from 0.2 µm to 3000 µm, and is
useful at both high and low accelerating voltages.
SRM 2090 is patterned on a silicon wafer and
cleanroom packaged; thus it can be inserted in
modern automated measurement systems used in
the semiconductor industry.
As an alternative to acquiring a calibrated scale ar-
tifact from NIST, many customers purchase or
fabricate their own scale artifacts and send them to
NIST for calibration.16
These pitch standards can be used to calibrate the
instrument scale of virtually any kind of measuring
microscope or IC feature placement tool, but spec-
imen charging may cause problems in SEMs. The
linewidth calibration patterns are valid only for op-
tical photomask linewidth measuring systems.
Summary The key concepts comprising measure-
ment traceability are the inevitable measurement
error and consequent measurement uncertainty. In
particular,
• a measurement of a continuous variable, such as
feature size or placement, has an unknown error;
• this error is the sum of error components with
unknown values arising from various error
sources;
• since its value is unknown, each error component
is represented instead by its probability
distribution;
• the probability distribution is characterized by its
variance;
• the measurement uncertainty is 2 times the root-
sum-square of the variances of the error compo-
nent probability distributions;
4-27-98, 10:02
 • measurements can be compared with each other
by comparing them to a common reference
through a chain of comparisons, each with its
own measurement uncertainty;
• measurement traceability is the documentation of
the measurement uncertainty contributions of
each link in a chain of measurement comparisons
leading to a stated reference, such as the defini-
tion of the meter.
References
1 International Vocabulary of Basic and General
Terms in Metrology, 2nd Ed, ISO, Geneva
(1993)
2 Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Mea-
surement, 1st Ed, ISO, Geneva (1993).
(Refs 1 and 2 are available from Global Engi-
neering Documents, 15 Inverness Way East,
Englewood, Colo. 80112. 800-624-3974).
3 B.N. Taylor and C.E. Kuyatt, Guidelines for
Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of
NIST Measurement Results, NIST Technical
Note 1297 (U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1994).
4 J. Potzick, "Photomask Metrology in the Era
of Neolithography", Proceedings of the 17th
Annual BACUS/SPIE Symposium on Photo-
mask Technology and Management, vol. 3236-
32, Redwood City, Calif. (Sept. 1997).
5 J. Potzick, "Accuracy in Integrated Circuit Di-
mensional Measurements," Ch 3, Handbook of
Critical Dimension Metrology and Process
Control, vol. TR52, SPIE, Bellingham, Wash.,
pp 120-132 (Sept. 1993).
6 B.N. Taylor, The International System of Units
(SI), NIST Special Publication 330 (1991).
7 T.J. Quinn, "Mise en Pratique of the Definition
of the Meter (1992)", Metrologia, vol. 30, no. 5
(January 1994).
8 J. Beers, Length Scale Measurement Proce-
dures at the National Bureau of Standards,
Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 87-3625,
1987.
Accuracy and Traceability in Dimensional Measurements, page 9
View publication stats
9 J. Beers and W. Penzes, NIST Length Scale In-
terferometer Measurement Assurance, NIST
IR 4998 (U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1992).
10 Ref 16, Appendix (1997).
11 National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation
Program (NVLAP), Procedures and General
Requirements, NIST Handbook 150 (1994).
http://ts.nist.gov/nvlap
12 Available from the NIST Standard Reference
Materials Program, Bldg. 202, Rm. 204, Na-
tional Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899 USA. Phone 301-
9 7 5 - 6 7 7 6 , FA X 3 0 1 - 9 4 8 - 3 7 3 0 , e m a i l
srminfo@nist.gov, http://ts.nist.gov/srm
13 J. Potzick, Antireflecting-Chromium Linewidth
Standard, SRM 473, for Calibration of Optical
Microscope Linewidth Measuring Systems,
NIST Special Publication SP-260-129 (1997).
14 J. Potzick, "New NIST-Certified Small Scale
Pitch Standard", 1997 Measurement Science
Conference, Pasadena, Calif. (1997).
15 Michael T. Postek, "Scanning Electron
Microscope-based Metrological Electron Mi-
croscope System and New Prototype Scanning
Electron Microscope Magnification Standard,"
Scanning Microscopy, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1087-
1099 (1989).
16 NIST Calibration Services Users’ Guide, NIST
Special Publication SP 250.
4-27-98, 10:02