Error Sources in Atomic Force Microscopy for Dimensional Measurements: Taxonomy and Modeling

[+] Author and Article Information
F. Marinello

DIMEG, University of Padova, Padova 35131, Italyfrancesco.marinello@unipd.it

S. Carmignato

DTG, University of Padova, Vicenza 36100, Italysimone.carmignato@unipd.it

A. Voltan

DIMEG, University of Padova, Padova 35131, Italyalessandro.voltan@unipd.it

E. Savio

DIMEG, University of Padova, Padova 35131, Italyenrico.savio@unipd.it

L. De Chiffre

MEK, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby 2800, Denmarkldch@mek.dtu.dk.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 132(3), 030903 (May 13, 2010) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4001242 History: Received February 26, 2008; Revised February 09, 2010; Published May 13, 2010; Online May 13, 2010

This paper aimed at identifying the error sources that occur in dimensional measurements performed using atomic force microscopy. In particular, a set of characterization techniques for errors quantification is presented. The discussion on error sources is organized in four main categories: scanning system, tip-surface interaction, environment, and data processing. The discussed errors include scaling effects, squareness errors, hysteresis, creep, tip convolution, and thermal drift. A mathematical model of the measurement system is eventually described, as a reference basis for errors characterization, with an applicative example on a reference silicon grating.

Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Scheme of the cosine error, occurring with best fitting plane subtraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Percentage standard deviation of the calibration coefficients reported in a logarithmic scale and divided by scan mode (open loop and closed loop) and scan direction (x and y). The second axis reports the average residual deviation of the open-loop and of the closed-loop scans after correction with the correspondent calibration coefficient. The void markers relative to the open-loop residual deviation indicate an improper correction, due to the high standard deviation of the correspondent calibration coefficient.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

An overview of different distortions occurring in AFM topographies; color equalization is linear with topography: darker and lighter regions refer, respectively, to lower and higher z values. (a) Reference waffle surface with a 3 μm pitch and 250 nm height. (b) Scaling due to noncalibrated instrument axes; (c) nonlinearity due, for instance, to hysteresis problems; (d) nonorthogonality of scanning x and y axes; (e) bow effect; (f) bending due to creep of the piezo-actuator; (g) overshoots; (h) artifacts due to particles pick up; (i) dilation due to tip convolution; (j) noisy measurement; (k) vertical drift between subsequent profiles; (l) horizontal drift between subsequent profiles; (m) effect of inappropriate profiles leveling; (n) result of severe Fourier filtering; (o) effect of severe Gaussian filtering.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a) Representation of a tube scanner movement causing bow and (b) AFM topography on a flat sample, presenting image bow

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Fringes around NiO structures due to mode-switching (29)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Tip radius curvature effect: (a) holes shrinking and peaks broadening; ((b) and (c)) tip curvature effect




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In