1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Comparative study of size dependent four-point probe sheet resistance measurement on laser annealed ultra-shallow junctions
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1116/1.2794743
/content/avs/journal/jvstb/26/1/10.1116/1.2794743
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/avs/journal/jvstb/26/1/10.1116/1.2794743

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Scanning electron micrographs of (a) a multicantilever probe with minimum electrode pitch of and (b) a pitch four-point probe with L-shaped static contact cantilevers.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

sheet resistance line scan perpendicular to the laser scan direction using a pitch four-point probe and a step size of . The vertical lines define the area which was consecutively probed with different probe pitches (cf. Fig. 3). A continuous function of the sheet resistance was approximated (thin line) for finite element method (FEM) simulations (cf. Fig. 9).

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Raw data of a line scan with step size repeated at the same location with various pitched four-point probes to compare macro and micro sheet resistances. Only selected electrode pitch results are shown for easy comparison.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Comparison of the relative standard deviation and relative peak-to-peak variation of the sheet resistance measured with different electrode pitches for (a) [cf. Fig. 5(a)] and (b) [cf. Fig. 5(b)].

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Selected electrode pitch and line segment of the line scan in Fig. 3. A line segment was chosen to represent the two main periodic variations of (a) and (b) .

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

point area scan measured with a pitch M4PP. The scan step sizes are 50 and in the and directions, respectively. Raw data are represented by dots.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Illustration of three independent four-point configurations, (a) A, (b), B and (c) C configurations.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Contour plots of the sensitivity to resistance variations for an in-line four-point probe in the A, C, and dual configuration modes, (a), (b), and (c), respectively. The four contacts are positioned at , (1,0), (2,0), and (3,0). The sensitivity goes to at the contact points for the A and C configurations; however, the color scale has been cut off (at ) to see the surrounding contour. The color scale has not been cut off for the dual configuration contour plot.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Comparison of A, C, and dual configurations, (a), (b), and (c), respectively, for a pitch four-point probe on a nonhomogeneous USJ. The thin line represents the surface sheet resistance as defined for the FEM simulations (which corresponds to the sheet resistance measured with a pitch M4PP). The thick line is the FEM simulated result and the cross represents the experimentally measured result (raw data).

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Specifications of four-point probes used in this work.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/avs/journal/jvstb/26/1/10.1116/1.2794743
2008-01-31
2014-04-19
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Comparative study of size dependent four-point probe sheet resistance measurement on laser annealed ultra-shallow junctions
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/avs/journal/jvstb/26/1/10.1116/1.2794743
10.1116/1.2794743
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM