Film Thickness Measurement

Project 06402
Preliminary Design Report
Brad Demers
Joe Fitzmyer
Julian Peters

0
 Table of Contents:
1.0 Background...............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Sponsor & Team Information...............................................................................................2

1.2 Meniscus Experiment...........................................................................................................3

1.3 The Fundamental Question...................................................................................................6

1.4 Project Definition.................................................................................................................6

1.5 Specifications:......................................................................................................................7

2.0 Concept Development..............................................................................................................8

2.1 Generating Concepts.............................................................................................................8

2.2 Feasibility Assessment & Concept Evaluation.....................................................................9

3.0 Theoretical Basis and Analysis................................................................................................13

3.1 Basics of Interferometry.....................................................................................................13

3.2 Detailed Analysis................................................................................................................15

3.3 MATLAB Model................................................................................................................17

3.4 MATLAB Model Verification.............................................................................................20

4.0 Preliminary Design..................................................................................................................22

4.1 Component Breakdown......................................................................................................22

4.2 Bill of Materials..................................................................................................................23

4.3 Block Diagram....................................................................................................................23

5.0 Senior Design II Plans............................................................................................................26

5.1 Design Challenges and Limitations of Spectroscopic Reflectance....................................26

5.2 Test Plans............................................................................................................................28

5.3 Senior Design II Gantt Chart..............................................................................................31

Appendix A: MATLAB Code........................................................................................................32

Appendix B: Wavelength Applicability.........................................................................................35

Appendix C: MATLAB Code Verification....................................................................................40

1
1.0 Background

1.1 Sponsor & Team Information

This project is sponsored by the RIT Thermal Analysis & Microfluidics Laboratory under

the auspices of Dr. Satish Kandlikar. He is a faculty member in the RIT Department of

Mechanical Engineering. The work to be done by the team in this project was prompted by an

experiment in the Thermal Analysis Laboratory. The experiment, which will be explained in

more detail in the next section, was performed by Wai Keat Kuan as his Masters thesis. Mr.

Kuan also published several papers concerning the experiment. Further data is needed to address

some questions that have been raised since those publications. The team will construct an

experimental apparatus that may be used to that end.

Julian Peters, the team leader, is a 5 th year student in the Mechanical Engineering BS/MS

program. Dr. Kandlikar is his thesis advisor, though his thesis work is not related to the

experiment discussed here. Joe Fitzmyer is a 5 th year student in Electrical Engineering, and Brad

Demers is a 5th year student in the Mechanical Engineering BS/MEng program.

2
1.2 Meniscus Experiment

The motivation for this project originated with the desire to determine the existence of a

film which may be present in an experiment in the RIT Thermal Analysis Lab. The experiment

in question is the moving meniscus experiment, which is designed to shed light on the

phenomena associated with nucleate boiling bubble growth.

The experiment consists of a copper cylinder, on end, rotating about its axis. The

cylinder is heated by induction heating, and water is deposited from a nozzle onto the rotating

surface of the cylinder. A stable meniscus is formed between the nozzle and the surface of the

copper cylinder. Heat is transferred into the meniscus, and evaporation takes place into the

surrounding air. Surface temperatures range from 102.5C to 108C.

Hot Copper
Nozzle Surface

Induction
Heating Coils

Figure 1.1: Detail of Nozzle and Heated Surface

3
4
 Nozzle
Inlet
Induction
Stepper
Water
Copper
Positioning
Nozzle
Feed
Micrometers
Thermocouple
Heating
Motor
Surface
Equipment

Figure 1.2: Overall View of Meniscus Experiment

5
 The experiment has many similarities to the growth and departure of a nucleating bubble

on a heated surface in pool boiling. The two sides of the smeared meniscus simulate the

receding and advancing contact lines of a growing and departing bubble, respectively. As a

bubble grows on a surface, the contact area grows and the liquid/vapor contact line recedes as the

vapor area expands. Once the bubble grows to a certain size, it begins to depart the surface. The

liquid area advances over the previously dry vapor area.

Receding contact line Advancing contact line

Heated, rotating copper cylinder

Direction of Rotation
Meniscus
Figure 1.3: Schematic of Meniscus Experiment in Progress

Experimental measurement of the heat transfer rate into the meniscus can shed light on

the importance of transient heat conduction in the growth of bubbles in nucleate boiling. The

advantages of this experiment over direct observation of the boiling phenomenon include the fact

that the advancing and receding contact lines can be carried out without obstruction due to

disturbed fluid throughout the boiling area. On the other hand, there are certain differences

between actual boiling and the simulation carried out here. One is the fact that the water in this

6
experiment evaporates into an air atmosphere, whereas in boiling the fluid evaporates into an

atmosphere of its own vapor phase.

1.3 The Fundamental Question

One important question remains unanswered by the work conducted in the RIT Thermal

Analysis Lab on the moving meniscus experiment. Some researchers have questioned whether

there might be an adsorbed layer of water left behind the meniscus even though the surface is

heated above the saturation temperature of water at atmospheric pressure. If this layer exists, it

will be much too thin to be observed with the naked eye. The layer was not investigated in the

research previously performed in the Thermal Analysis Laboratory, which constitutes a failing of

the research that must be corrected.

The primary aim of this Senior Design project is to develop a system that could be used

to settle this question. Therefore, the fundamental requirement is that the system be able to

differentiate between the case of a film being present and no film being present. Beyond this, it

would be of use to be able to quantify the thickness of the film and its variation along the path of

the meniscus.

1.4 Project Definition

The meniscus experiment and the questions surrounding it provide the impetus for this

senior design project. However, to provide a clearer and more attainable goal for the team, the

project objective is to produce a thin film measurement system in general, not specifically to

7
measure the film which may or may not be present in the meniscus experiment. There are

challenges surrounding the meniscus experiment that may preclude the team from succeeding at

settling the aforementioned questions within the 20-week time period available to them.

However, development of a system capable of measuring thin films under more controlled

circumstances will provide a strong base from which following teams or researchers in the RIT

Thermal Analysis and Microfluidics Laboratory can proceed to settle the specific questions about

the moving meniscus experiment. Specifications will be developed in a separate section of this

report, which will include the accuracy and precision of the measurement system, the amount of

time required for a measurement, and the amount of user input required for a measurement.

1.5 Specifications:
Speed Typical measurement including data analysis 1 ~ 2.0 seconds

Thickness range transparent films 0 - 6000 nm

Thickness range absorbing films 0 - 6000 nm
Range of angle of incidence 30 - 90 degrees
Reflection angle steps 5 degree +/- 0.01 deg.
Accuracy of measured Refractive index 0.0001
Accuracy of film thickness +/- 0.001 nm
Stability Long term ( months ) +/- 0.01deg in delta
Measurement time less 1 (completely adjustable )
Sample stage adjustments Tilt and height
Sample alignment Laser alignment, automatic tilt correction unit (optional)
Standard wavelength 405nm, 635nm, 785nm, 830nm

8
2.0 Concept Development
2.1 Generating Concepts

The following is a list of proposed methods for measuring film thickness within the lab

setup. This list will be narrowed down by eliminating options that are not feasible. Many of the

methods listed below are optical methods, as this is the most prominent measurement technique

available today.

Polarized Reflectometer

Unpolarized Reflectometer

Focused Beam Interferometer

Spectroscopic Ellipsometer

Acoustic reflections

Photo-Resistance modeling

Thermal Cycle Testing

Profilometer

This list is trimmed in order to perform a more concise feasibility assessment. Removed

from this list are the unpolarized reflectometer, acoustic reflections, photo-resistance modeling,

thermal cycle testing, and profilometry. Acoustic methods are removed because we would not be

able to focus sound within the resolution necessary to measure such thin films. Ultrasound

capabilities with the necessary resolution are well beyond the scope and budget of this project.

Ultrasound techniques would also involve physical measurement which would likely disrupt the

9
film to be measured. This method may also be very susceptible to noise. Photo-Resistance

modeling and thermal cycle testing are removed because they require a stationary medium to

measure. The measurement will take place on a rotating surface. Measurements need to be

taken very quickly, which is beyond the capabilities of both methods. Profilometry is removed

because measurements will be taken on a surface that will likely have imperfections thicker than

the medium being measured, and this method would unlikely be able to resolve surface

differences from film thicknesses. The unpolarized reflectometer is removed because

interference measurement could not be completed and measured within a small time frame.

Measurements need to be taken over an exposure time, and interference reviewed over this time.

Small changes in film thickness may disturb such a measurement technique.

The remaining methods--Polarized reflectometry, focused beam interferometry and

spectroscopic ellipsometrywill be further reviewed. A weighted feasibility assessment will be

performed in order to establish the best technique with which to complete the project.

2.2 Feasibility Assessment & Concept Evaluation

The concepts selected above are reviewed more closely in order to select the optimum

method for completing the project goals. This was completed using the Pugh method. Each

attribute related to the project was weighted against the others in order to establish the most

important decision making parameters. Of particular interest for the concepts chosen were

accuracy, speed, price, space requirements, adjustability, noise sensitivity, measurement range,

and ease of use. Each parameter was viewed relative to the othersfor example is accuracy

more important than speed?and the final decision was made based on the relative weights of

10
all the attributes. Once the attributes are weighted each concept is rated within each. Ratings are

based on a 1 to 5 scale with 5 being the best. A baseline is set (3.0), such that one concept is

rated at the baseline for each attribute. Initial design ideas revolved around the polarized

reflectometer, so that was chosen as the baseline. The remaining methods were then rated

against the baseline for each attribute. The results of this are shown below in figure 2.1.

Focused Beam Interferometer

Evaluate each additional concept

Spectroscopic Ellipsometer
against the baseline, score each

Polarized Reflectometer
attribute as: 1 = much worse than
baseline concept 2 = worse than
baseline 3 = same as baseline 4 =

Relative Weight
better than baseline 5= much better
than baseline

Price 3.0 4 1 21%

Accuracy 3.0 4 5 25%
space requirement 3.0 3 2 18%
speed 3.0 3 5 4%
adjustability/additional applications 3.0 2 1 0%
noise sensitivity 3.0 4 5 7%
range of measurements 3.0 2 3 14%
ease of use 3.0 4 1 11%
0 0%
0 0%

Weighted Score 3.0 3.5 2.9

Normalized Score 85.7% 100.0% 82.7%

Figure 2.1: Selection Between Optical Methods

11
 As can be seen above the most important attributes in terms of weight are the price and

accuracy of the system. The focused beam methods are found to be less expensive than the

polarized reflectometer because less beam condition equipment is needed. The focused beam is

also slightly more accurate because of the positioning error from this equipment is also removed.

On the other hand spectroscopic ellipsometric methods would be much more expensive.

Commercial equipment in this field runs near $30,000. This is well beyond the budget of this

project, and the equipment itself is intended for clean room use. Under price, this method

receives a 1, which is the worst rating. This concept did, however receive a 5 for accuracy, as it

easily can measure sub-microns.

Continuing down the chart, space requirements speed were relatively important factors in

determining the ideal method. The setup is intended to be used in an already cluttered lab, and

hopefully used on an experiment that is limited with many other pieces of equipment. In terms

of space, the focused beam interferometer would take approximately the same amount of room,

whereas the ellipsometer would be slightly larger. The methods received a 3 and a 2,

respectively, for this parameter. In terms of speed, which is a slightly less important parameter,

the ellipsometer would perform the bestwarranting a 5 rating. The ellipsometer is stable and

fully automated, and would able to measure the thickness in a few minutes. The interferometer,

on the other hand, would take approximately the same amount of time as the reflectometer, and

is rated as a 3.

Of the remaining decision parameters, measurement range and noise sensitivity are the

areas where the greatest difference is present between the concepts. Both the interferometer and

the ellipsometer are better than the reflectometer in terms of noise sensitivity. The interferometer

utilizes a coherence filter in the photodiode which limits the effects of visible noise. The

12
ellipsometer fairs even better, as it is a fully enclosed machine and is less likely to be affected by

room lighting. For the range of measurement parameter, the only difference from the baseline is

that the interferometer would not be able to measure as wide a range of thicknesses due to its

wavelength limitations. If the system wavelength is too long, the resolution would not be

available to accurately measure the thickness. If it is too short, measurements would be

dominated by the number of oscillations, and error in measurements would be large. The

interferometer is therefore marked below the baseline in this category.

Combining the results from each parameter yields a weighted average of 3.5 for the

interferometer and 2.9 for the ellipsometer. The weighted average for the reflectometer remains

at the baseline (3.0). In this respect, it can be seen that the best concept for completion of this

project is the focused beam interferometer. If for some reason we were unable to complete this

project with this method, the reflectometer would be the second most feasible choice.

Once it was decided to pursue the focused beam interferometer, the concept need to be

further developed with an eye on project specifications. Decisions concerning the hardware for

this project were at the forefront. This method could be carried out by operating through a range

of wavelengths or through a range of angles. The decision was made to work with a constant

wavelength (laser diode), and alter the angles of the beam and sensor. This was made in order to

reduce the possible error involved with using a white light source that is conditioned. The

members of this team did not have the advanced knowledge necessary to complete such a

project. In addition, the use of a white light source and optical positioning equipment would

require additional space. The beam and any conditioning equipment necessary would need to be

contained in a small area. This area is limited by the range of motion and focal length for

goniometers chosen to mount the laser diode and photodiode.

13
3.0 Theoretical Basis and Analysis
3.1 Basics of Interferometry

Once interferometry had been chosen as the best method with which to determine the

presence of and measure the thickness of a film, the theoretical basis from which these

measurements would be taken had to be determined.

The basic phenomenon of interference is well known to everyone who has taken an

introductory physics class. Two beams of light, when combined, can most generally form a

more, less, or equally intense beam as compared to the original beams. This depends on the

difference between the phases of the beams. Fully constructive interference is illustrated below

in Figure 3.1:

In Phase: + =

Figure 3.1: Fully Constructive Interference

Figure 3.2 illustrates fully destructive interference. In this case the two waves effectively

cancel out:

180 Out of Phase: + =

Figure 3.2: Fully Destructive Interference

14
 Most generally, the combination of two beams of light will produce interference

somewhere between these two extremes. In the application of interferometry that we

are using, the two beams actually start as one beam. They are separated into two beams

at the film surface when part of the incident beam reflects from the surface and part of it

continues into the film. The part that continues into the film reflects from the substrate

surface and recombines with the first reflected beam once it exits the film. The extra

distance traveled through the film by the second beam constitutes a path length

difference that results in a phase difference between the two beams. This will cause an

attenuation of the intensity of the resultant beam with respect to the intensity of the

incident beam.

4) The recombined beam is collected at a sensor.

The intensity is measured, and can be compared to
the intensity of the original beam.

1) Light is emitted
from the laser diode.
3)The two reflected beams recombine.
The difference in the path length taken
by the two beams manifests itself as a
phase difference, which can cause
Film Surface attenuation of the beam intensity.

Substrate Surface
2) Two reflections take place: part of the
beam reflects from the film surface, part of it
continues through the film and reflects from
the substrate surface.

15
 Figure 3.3: Schematic Representation of Laser Interferometry

The effects of refraction at the film surface have not been depicted in Figure 3.3 for

simplicity, but they have been taken into account in the analysis performed by the team. The

effects of the variation of the complex index of refraction of the substrate (i.e., copper) has been

taken into account, though reliable data for the variation of the index of refraction of water have

proved elusive.

3.2 Detailed Analysis

Since the team does not posses adequate expertise in the field of optics to analyze the

system with sufficient accuracy, a reference was consulted. Josef Humleks section Theory of

Ellipsometry in Handbook of Ellipsometry, edited by H. Tompkins and E. Irene provided an

approachable analysis of an ambient-film-substrate system. In Humleks notation, phi

represents the angle of incidence, n represents a real index of refraction, and N an imaginary

index of refraction. The subscript a refers to the ambient material (i.e., air), subscript 1 indicates

the film, and subscript 0 refers to the substrate. Effective indices of refraction of the ambient,

film, and substrate are calculated according to equations 3.2.1 and 3.2.2:

~ n cos
n for s-polarization
a a
~
na na cos for p-polarization
Equations 3.2.1: Effective Indices of Refraction for Ambient

N j N j 1 na sin N j
~ 2
for s-polarization

1 na sin N j
~ 2 for p-polarization
Nj Nj
Equations 3.2.2: Effective Indices of Refraction for Film and Substrate

16
 Once the effective indices of refraction have been calculated, a parameter, , is calculated

for each angle of incidence. This parameter is calculated according to

2
d1 N1 1 na sin N1
2

Equation 3.2.3: Parameter

Once these calculations have been completed, the overall reflectivity coefficients of the

ambient-film-substrate system can be calculated for s- and p-polarization. That calculation is

made according to equation 3.2.4:

~
~
~ ~

N1 n~a N 0 i n~a N 0 N12 tan
r ~ ~ ~
~ ~
N1 na N 0 i n~a N 0 N12 tan
Equation 3.2.4: Reflectivity Coefficient

The reader may note at this point that the reflectivity coefficient may, most generally, be a

complex quantity. However, the power reflectivity, the ratio of the intensity of the reflected

beam to the incident beam, is calculated as the product of the reflectivity coefficient and its

complex conjugate:

I reflected
R r r
I incident

Equation 3.2.5: Power Reflectivity

The power reflectivity varies most generally with film thickness, the indices of refraction

of the ambient, film, and substrate, the wavelength of the light, and the incident angle. The

power reflectivity varies periodically with each the film thickness and the incident angle. The

period of the oscillations depends on all of the above parameters. In seeking the most easily

17
applied and robust way to determine the film thickness, the team identified the oscillatory

behavior of the power reflectivity as key. While the precise value of the relative reflectivity of

the ambient-film-substrate system is vulnerable to the losses inherent in a physical system as

opposed to our theoretical analysis, the period of the oscillations are physically determined by

the wavelength of the light, the optical properties of the ambient, substrate, and film, the incident

angle, and the thickness of the film. Thus, to find the thickness of the film, we need simply to

know the other parameters, to measure the period of the oscillations, and to match that period

with simulation.

3.3 MATLAB Model

The above analysis was written as a MATLAB code to assist the team in determining

appropriate specifications and requirements. The model takes as its inputs the maximum and

minimum incident angle to scan through, the angle step size, three film thicknesses to consider

and overlay, and the wavelength of the light to be simulated. At present the code simulates only

for a water film on a copper substrate, but it can easily be modified to simulate any film on any

substrate. The only necessary changes are to change the film and substrate indices of refraction,

which are constants contained within the program. The complete MATLAB code is available in

Appendix A.

To illustrate the oscillatory behavior of the power reflectivity, here are sample results from

our MATLAB simulation. They are generated at a wavelength of 635 nm, the wavelength of

commercially available red laser diodes, for a film of water on copper, and for three different

film thicknesses as indicated. The incident angle varies from zero to ninety degrees.

18
 =635 nm, s-polarization
1

0.9

film thickness=1 m
0.8
film thickness=10 m
film thickness=25 m

0.7

0.6
Relative intensity

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence, degrees

Figure 3.4: Power Reflectivity as a Function of Incident Angle for s-Polarized Light

19
 =635 nm, p-polarization
1

film thickness=1 m
film thickness=10 m
film thickness=25 m

0.9

0.8

0.7
Relative intensity

0.6

0.5

0.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence, degrees

Figure 3.5: Power Reflectivity as a Function of Incident Angle for p-Polarized Light

20
 The period of the oscillations clearly varies significantly with the thickness of the film. A

more detailed survey of simulation results has been carried out, and indicates that using

commercially available laser diodes at wavelengths of 405 nm, 635 nm, 785 nm, and 830 nm

will allow us to accurately measure films ranging from 1 micron to 100 and more microns in

thickness. These simulation results can be found in Appendix B.

The shorter wavelength lasers more accurately measure the thinner films, while for those

wavelengths the thicker films generate very fast oscillations which may be difficult to

differentiate from noise. The longer wavelength lasers handle thicker films well, as the

frequency of the oscillations is reduced allowing for more accurate measurement. However,

these longer wavelengths produce very few oscillations with the thinner films, resulting in a less

accurate measurement.

3.4 MATLAB Model Verification

The MATLAB model was verified by comparison to a commercially available software

package, WVASE32. WVASE32 is a very complex and powerful ellipsometry analysis package.

The RIT Microelectronic Engineering program owns this software package because they use

advanced film analysis tools in their semiconductor applications. For the purposes of this

project, development of a simpler, easier to use, open, and proprietary code was a better choice

than to attempt to use WVASE32. However, the MATLAB code was validated against data

gathered from WVASE32 to ensure its accuracy. The team would like to thank Lance Barron for

his assistance in supplying us with these data.

21
 Data gathered from WVASE 32 and from the teams MATLAB model were plotted over

each other to allow for easy comparison. The frequency of the oscillations, the teams chosen

parameter, matches closely between the WVASE32 and MATLAB data. There is a slight

difference in the phases and amplitudes of the oscillations, which further emphasizes that these

parameters may vary between simulation and reality, proving the frequency to be a good choice

of parameter to measure. A sample graph is provided below, but the full set of graphs produced

to verify the model are available in Appendix C

Rp for 10 micron layer, 400nm light
1

WVASE
MATLAB

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
Rp

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Angle of Incidence (Degrees)

Figure 3.6: Sample MATLAB Verification Graph

22
 4.0 Preliminary Design
4.1 Component Breakdown

Having chosen to implement a focused beam interferometer, the team broke down the

concept into component parts. The necessary components are a light source, a sensor,

positioning equipment, motor control hardware, data acquisition hardware, and a computer to

control the system, gather data, and analyze the data. Code will also have to be written to control

the system, gather the data, and analyze the data, but this will not be a purchased or

manufactured, per se, component. The RIT Thermal Analysis and Microfluidics Lab will be able

to provide a computer. The team has selected a laser diode, photsensor, motorized goniometers

and associated control hardware, and data acquisition hardware.

Laser diode: TIM-206 Goniometers: GNL18/M-Z6

Photodiode: S2684-650

Motor Controller: DCX-PCI100

DAQ: NI USB-6009

23
 4.2 Bill of Materials
A list and description of purchased and manufactured parts is listed below. Although the

overall cost is higher than the project budget, it is expected that this figure will decrease.

Alternatives still need to be sought out for the PCI card, which is a large portion of the

expenditures. As can be seen on the bill of materials (figure x.x), most of the money currently

allotted is for products from ThorLabs, and the possibilities of donation or discount yet to be

explored. Components to be built by the team will be built around purchased components. All

machined parts will need to be created within the error specifications of all purchased parts in

order to preserve the accuracy of the system.

4.3 Block Diagram

Control Hardware Goniometer

Stepper Motors
Information
Control

Laser Diode Power

Operator PC

Light reflected
from surface

LabView Data Photosensor

Collection Hardware

Figure 4.1: Information and control flow through system

24
 Bill of Materials and Cost
Item # Part Description Purpose Company Part Number Price Qty needed Total Cost
650 nm laser
Emits beam
diode with
1 Laser Diode focused on Laser Dreams TIM-206 $ 60.00 1 $60.00
10mW output
one spot.
power

High Sensitive Measures

Monochromatic power of
Silicon Pin reflected
2 Photodiode diode. Sensitive beam. Hamamatsu S2684-650 $ 108.60 1 $108.60
to 650 nm light Outputs
with interference measured
filter voltage.
Positions
Large Metric laser and
Mount with focus sensor at a
1.75" away. 200 range of
3 Goniometer Thorlabs GNL18/M-Z6 $ 450.00 2 $900.00
rotation in either angles, with
0
direction in 1 same focal
increments point and
distance.
Mounts laser
diode to the
goniometer
laser diode such that the
4 Laser Mount 06402 Team Fabrication none $ - 1 $0.00
mount laser module
does not
extend past
the focal point
 Mounts
photodiode to
the
goniometer
photodiode
5 Sensor Mount such that the 06402 Team Fabrication none $ - 1 $0.00
mount
diode module
does not
extend past
the focal point
Mounts
goniometer
with high
6 Goniometer Mount Position mount positional 06402 Team Fabrication none $ - 2 $0.00
accuracy. Will
be built to
table.
Understands
user inputs
and relays
them to motor.
Motorized Accurately
7 PCI card Thorlabs DCX-PCI100 $1,195.00 1 $1,195.00
controller card postions and
synchronizes
both motors.
Reports data
back to user
relays position
and power
8 Multifunction DAQ 12-bit resolution National Instruments NI-USB-6009 $ 125.00 1 $125.00
information to
the operator
Total --> $2,388.60
Total with Tax --> $2,591.63

26
5.0 Senior Design II Plans

5.1 Design Challenges and Limitations of Spectroscopic Reflectance

Spectral reflectance can measure the thickness, roughness, and optical constants of a

broad range of thin films. However, if there is less than one reflectance oscillation (ie. the film is

very thin), there is less information available to determine the adjustable model parameters.

Therefore, the number of film properties that may be determined decreases for very thin films.

If one attempts to solve for too many parameters, a unique solution cannot be found;

more than one possible combination of parameter values may result in a calculated reflectance

that matches the measured reflectance. Depending upon the film and the wavelength range of the

measurement, the minimum single-film thickness that can be measured using spectral reflectance

is in the 10 to 300 range. Throughout the design and implementation of this project there will

be many challenges that will need to be solved.

Our light source will need to have consistent stable output with minimal shot and phase

noise as well keeping directional instability to a minimum. The wavelength of our laser diode

needs to remain constant at 650 5 nm. Beam divergence needs to be considered with regards to

our optical sensors choice.

The system is being designed to maximize accuracy for different film thicknesses,

however to achieve this lasers and photo diodes will be swappable to operate at different

wavelengths. Our lab view setup will be able to adapt to several predetermined wavelengths. To

27
minimize sensor noise our experiment will need to be isolated from external light radiation. We

will be overlaying a sealed dark environment over our experiment.

Random vibrations will cause inaccuracies in our readings. An isolation table will be used

to minimize vibration errors.

The photodiode collection area needs to be large enough to allow for beam divergence. It

will need to be able to collect/report inputs on the order of 10uW. The diode will need to be at an

exact perpendicular incident angle to get a full representation of the emitted power.

Positioning our sensors and emitters will be a challenging to achieve the desired repeatable and

accuracy in controlling our incident angles. Due to the absolute need for precision we chose to

use very accurate goniometers with built in motor controls. They will be controlled by a Thorlabs

control card which will allow for very flexible synchronization and precision.

We will need to make custom Equipment Mounts to hold the lasers and the sensors. They

will need to be machined with tolerances on the same order as the goniometer for the sake

accuracy.

Data Collection Equipment Needs to be as sensitive as the photodiode. Resolution is

critical. Measurements will need to be taken with high frequency and speed.

Needs to interface with MATLAB and post processing code. Needs to output measured thickness

as well as an accurate representation of the confidence level or error in the measurement.

28
If the meniscus experiment is utilized a uniform surface must be created. Small surface

imperfections will cause unnecessary reflection.

5.2 Test Plans

Once the interferometer system has been assembled, it will need to be tested and perhaps

refined. Initial tests on all assembly components will also need to be completed prior to

assembling the system. The photodiode will need to be tested in a number of ways. First, it will

need to be tested with direct exposure to the laser diode to ensure that it can measure the emitted

power of the diode. Second, it will need to be tested with slight changes in the reflective surface

in order to demonstrate and measure differences in the energy. This test will also demonstrate

the capability and resolution of the photodiode in a real application. Third, the diode will need to

be tested in a range of ambient lighting setting. This will demonstrate the capability of the

coherence filter to eliminate ambient noise. If the filter is not able to eliminate this noise further

calculation will need to be made based on the amount of noise present in the system and what

changes need to be made to remove this error from the results.

The power output of the laser diode will need to be tested to demonstrate the average

total power emitted and also the range or variability of the output. The power output of the diode

needs to be known so that changes in power measured at the photodiode can be distinguishable.

Problems will arise if it is not known whether the power variance is caused by film interference

or by variability in laser power output.

The goniometers will need to be tested for accuracy in change of position and also in

synchronization. Synchronization will be tested by using a highly reflective surface and

29
operating the system through a range of angles. Because there will be no film thickness present

it will be expected that the power output remain constant across each angle increment. If power

fluctuates, it can be assumed that the equipment is not synchronized or that the diodes are not

accurately mounted to the system.

Once the system is assembled, the PCI card and goniometers motors will need to be

tested. The goniometers need to move through the complete range of angles without faulting and

with little input from the operator. Each step should be distinct, visible and recognizable.

Once the components of the system have been tested, a measure of the overall system

performance must be obtained. Initial tests will also contribute to the calibration of the system

and provide error estimates for future measurements. In order to test the system, films with

known thicknesses and indexes of refraction will be measured. These films will be created by

the RIT Microelectronic Engineering Department. Simulation of the measurement in MATLAB

will provide the exact solution, and test measurements will be performed and compared with this

solution. Ideally the data output by the system would match that of the MATLAB simulation,

but that is not likely to be the case. The output data will be compared to the simulation to

demonstrate whether the actual measurement output featured the same amplitude, oscillation

number, and power ratio as the simulation. If the output data is similar in respect to the shape

and frequency of the simulated curve, then the output data can be calibrated such that a

positional shift in the curve will force a more accurate representation of the simulation. By

calibrating this data it will more feasible that future data outputs could be fit to simulation

outputs such that a more accurate representation of the film thickness is measured.

If tests on a number of thicknesses prove that the system cannot accurately repeated

simulated measurements, a measure of system error will need to be computed. A possible

30
redesign of the system may also be necessary if output data cannot be forced to fit known curves

that represent the measurement conditions.

Once a number of these tests have been carried out, a database of output curves may need

to be created. These curves will be utilized for comparison and curve fitting when the system

measures films with unknown thicknesses. The more curves created for comparison--the greater

the accuracy and precision in future measurements.

Repeat measurements will also need to be performed in order to measure the precision of

the system. This can be performed in a number of ways. The measurement can be repeated over

and over, with different ambient conditions, with different starting and finishing angles, and with

a different range of overall motion. By determining the deviation in these measurements, a

measure of the precision of the system can be attained.

31
5.3 Senior Design II Gantt Chart

Senior Design II
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5
Receive Ordered Parts
Machine Team-Manufactured Parts
Write Control and DAQ Code
Assemble System
Test System

Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10

Write Control and DAQ Code
Assemble System
Test System
Run Meniscus Tests
Write Reports, etc.

32
Appendix A: MATLAB Code
%Thin Film Interferometry
%See Humlicek, "Polarized Light and Ellipsometry" in "Handbook of
%Ellipsometry", edited by H. Tompson & E. Irene
%Matlab code by Julian Peters
function interfere()
clc

% global thetaideg Rs Rp

%%%%%%%%%%%
%Constants%
%%%%%%%%%%%
na=1.0; %index of refraction of air
nw=1.333; %index of refraction of water
%Index of Refraction of Water as a function of wavelength,
%temperature, and pressure
%Index of Refraction of Copper as a function of wavelength
%(from W. Lynch & W.R. Hunter in Handbook of Optical Constants
% of Solids edited by E. D. Palik):
Nclambdas=[516.6e-10; 539.0e-10; 563.5e-10; 590.4e-10; 619.9e-10;...
652.5e-10; 688.8e-10; 729.3e-10; 774.9e-10; 799.9e-10; 826.5e-10;...
855.0e-10; 885.6e-10; 953.7e-10; 0.1033e-6; 0.1127e-6; 0.1240e-6;...
0.1305e-6; 0.1378e-6; 0.1459e-6; 0.1550e-6; 0.1563e-6; 0.1771e-6;...
0.1907e-6; 0.2066e-6; 0.2138e-6; 0.2214e-6; 0.2296e-6; 0.2384e-6;...
0.2480e-6; 0.2583e-6; 0.2695e-6; 0.2818e-6; 0.2952e-6; 0.3099e-6;...
0.3263e-6; 0.3444e-6; 0.3646e-6; 0.3874e-6; 0.4133e-6; 0.4428e-6;...
0.4768e-6; 0.5166e-6; 0.5390e-6; 0.5635e-6; 0.5904e-6; 0.6199e-6;...
0.6525e-6; 0.6702e-6; 0.6880e-6; 0.7084e-6; 0.7293e-6; 0.8265e-6;...
1.2400e-6; 1.2650e-6; 1.2910e-6; 1.3190e-6; 1.3480e-6; 1.3780e-6;...
1.4090e-6; 1.4420e-6; 1.4760e-6; 1.5120e-6; 1.5500e-6; 1.5890e-6;...
1.6310e-6; 1.6750e-6; 1.7220e-6; 1.7710e-6; 1.8230e-6; 1.8780e-6;...
1.9370e-6; 2.0000e-6];
Ncreals=[0.961; .943; .917; .897; .882; .883; .890; .913; .954; .981;...
1.01; 1.03; 1.06; 1.08; 1.09; 1.07; 1.04; 1.03; 1.03; 1.03; 1.03;...
1.01; .972; .958; 1.04; 1.10; 1.18; 1.28; 1.38; 1.47; 1.53; 1.52;...
1.49; 1.42; 1.34; 1.34; 1.31; 1.27; 1.18; 1.18; 1.17; 1.15; 1.12;...
1.04; .826; .468; .272; .214; .215; .213; .214; .223; .260; .433;...
.496; .505; .515; .525; .536; .547; .559; .572; .586; .606; .627;...
.649; .672; .697; .723; .752; .782; .815; .850];
Ncimags=[0.373; .366; .381; .411; .455; .507; .561; .620; .673; .695;...
.707; .717; .724; .724; .731; .754; .818; .867; .921; .979; 1.03;...
1.09; 1.20; 1.37; 1.59; 1.67; 1.74; 1.78; 1.80; 1.78; 1.71; 1.67;...
1.64; 1.64; 1.72; 1.81; 1.87; 1.95; 2.21; 2.21; 2.36; 2.50; 2.60;...
2.59; 2.60; 2.81; 3.24; 3.67; 3.86; 4.05; 4.24; 4.43; 5.26; 8.46;...
6.78; 6.92; 7.06; 7.21; 7.36; 7.53; 7.70; 7.88; 8.06; 8.26; 8.47;...
8.69; 8.92; 9.16; 9.41; 9.68; 9.97; 10.3; 10.6];

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Get input from user%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
prompt={'Minimum Angle of Incidence (deg)',...
'Maximum Angle of Incidence (deg)','AoI Step Size (deg)',...
'Thickness #1 (microns)', 'Thickness #2 (microns)',...
 'Thickness #3 (microns)','Wavelength (nm)'};
dlg_title='Model Parameters';
num_lines=1;
defAns={'0','90','.01','1','10','25','635'};
userinput=inputdlg(prompt,dlg_title,num_lines,defAns,'on');

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Process inputs from user%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
parameters=str2num(str2mat(userinput));
minangle=parameters(1);
maxangle=parameters(2);
step=parameters(3);
d(1)=parameters(4)*10^-6;
d(2)=parameters(5)*10^-6;
d(3)=parameters(6)*10^-6;
lambda=parameters(7)*10^-9;

%Interpolate complex index of refraction of copper

Nc=interp1(Nclambdas,Ncreals,lambda,'cubic')+...
j*interp1(Nclambdas,Ncimags,lambda,'cubic');

%Parameters
thetaideg=minangle:step:maxangle; %angle of incidence, degrees
thetai=(thetaideg)*pi/180; %convert angle of incidence to radians

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Main Calculations%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%Calculate effective indices of refraction from Humlicek 1.262, 1.264

naeffs=na.*cos(thetai);
naeffp=na./cos(thetai);
nweffs=nw.*sqrt(1-(na.*sin(thetai)./nw).^2);
nweffp=nw./sqrt(1-(na.*sin(thetai)./nw).^2);
Nceffs=Nc.*sqrt(1-(na.*sin(thetai)./Nc).^2);
Nceffp=Nc./sqrt(1-(na.*sin(thetai)./Nc).^2);

%Step through different thicknesses

for i=1:length(d)
%% s-polarization %%
%Calculate theta parameter (Humlicek 1.266)
thetaparam=(2.*pi./lambda).*d(i).*nw.*sqrt(1-(na.*...
sin(thetai)./nw).^2);
%Calculate reflectivity coefficient (Humlicek 1.267)
rs=(nweffs.*(naeffs-Nceffs)-j.*(naeffs.*Nceffs-nweffs.^2).*...
tan(thetaparam))./(nweffs.*(naeffs+Nceffs)-
j.*(naeffs.*Nceffs+nweffs.^2)...
.*tan(thetaparam));
%Calculate relative intensity
Rs(i,:)=rs.*conj(rs);
%% p-polarization %%
%Calculate theta parameter (Humlicek 1.266)
%Calculate reflectivity coefficient (Humlicek 1.267)
rp=(nweffp.*(naeffp-Nceffp)-j.*(naeffp.*Nceffp-nweffp.^2).*tan(thetaparam))...

34
 ./(nweffp.*(naeffp+Nceffp)-
j.*(naeffp.*Nceffp+nweffp.^2).*tan(thetaparam));
%Calculate relative intensity
Rp(i,:)=rp.*conj(rp);
end

%%%%%%%%%%
%Plotting%
%%%%%%%%%%
%s-polarization plot
figure
hold on
plot(thetaideg,Rs(1,:),'r')
plot(thetaideg,Rs(2,:),'b')
plot(thetaideg,Rs(3,:),'g')
legend(['film thickness=' num2str(d(1)*10^6) ' \mum'],...
['film thickness=' num2str(d(2)*10^6) ' \mum'],...
['film thickness=' num2str(d(3)*10^6) ' \mum'],2)
xlabel('Angle of Incidence, degrees')
ylabel('Relative intensity')
title(['\lambda=' num2str(lambda*10^9) ' nm, s-polarization'])
set(gcf,'Name','s-polarization')
hold off

%p-polarization plot
figure
hold on
plot(thetaideg,Rp(1,:),'r')
plot(thetaideg,Rp(2,:),'b')
plot(thetaideg,Rp(3,:),'g')
legend(['film thickness=' num2str(d(1)*10^6) ' \mum'],...
['film thickness=' num2str(d(2)*10^6) ' \mum'],...
['film thickness=' num2str(d(3)*10^6) ' \mum'],2)
xlabel('Angle of Incidence, degrees')
ylabel('Relative intensity')
title(['\lambda=' num2str(lambda*10^9) ' nm, p-polarization'])
set(gcf,'Name','p-polarization')
hold off
end

35
Appendix B: Wavelength Applicability

36
 =405 nm, s-polarization
1.4

film thickness=1 m
film thickness=10 m
film thickness=25 m

1.2

0.8
Relative intensity

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence, degrees
 =635 nm, s-polarization
1

film thickness=1 m
film thickness=10 m
film thickness=25 m
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
Relative intensity

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence, degrees

38
 =785 nm, s-polarization
1

film thickness=25 m
film thickness=50 m
film thickness=100 m
0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8
Relative intensity

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence, degrees

39
 =830 nm, s-polarization
1

film thickness=1 m
film thickness=10 m
film thickness=25 m

0.95

0.9
Relative intensity

0.85

0.8

0.75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence, degrees

40
Appendix C: MATLAB Code Verification
42
 Rs for 50 micron layer, 633 nm light
1

WV
MAT

0.9

0.8

0.7
Rs

0.6

0.5

0.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence (deg)

43
 Rp for 1 micron layer, 400 nm light
1

WV
MAT

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
Rp

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence

44
 Rp for 1 micron layer, 633 nm light
1

WV
MAT

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75
Rp

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence (deg)

45
 Rp for 10 micron layer, 400nm light
1

WV
MAT

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
Rp

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence (Degrees)

46
 Rp for 10 micron layer, 633 nm light
1

WV
MAT

0.9

0.8
Rp

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence

47
 Rp for 50 micron layer, 400 nm light
1

WV
MAT

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
Rp

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence (deg)

48
 Rp for 50 micron layer, 633 nm light
1

WV
MAT

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
Rp

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence (deg)

49
 Rs for 1 micron layer, 400 nm light
1

WV
MAT

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
Rs

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence (deg)

50
 Rs for 1 micron layer, 633 nm light
1

WV
MAT

0.98

0.96

0.94
Rs

0.92

0.9

0.88

0.86
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence

51
 Rs for 10 micron layer, 400 nm light
1.4

WV
MAT

1.2

0.8
Rs

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence

52
 Rs for 10 micron layer, 633 nm light
1

WV
MAT

0.95

0.9

0.85
Rs

0.8

0.75

0.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence (deg)

53
 Rs for 50 micron layer, 400 nm light
1

WV
MAT

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
Rs

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Angle of Incidence (deg)

54