A study of electron penetration in solids using a direct Monte Carlo

approach
I. Adesida, R. Shimizu, and T. E. Everhart

Citation: J. Appl. Phys. 51, 5962 (1980); doi: 10.1063/1.327515

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.327515
View Table of Contents: http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/JAPIAU/v51/i11
Published by the American Institute of Physics.

Related Articles
Analysis of deformation twinning in tantalum single crystals under shock loading conditions
J. Appl. Phys. 113, 083522 (2013)
Electron back-scattering coefficient below 5keV: Analytical expressions and surface-barrier effects
J. Appl. Phys. 112, 084905 (2012)
Diffraction study of bending-induced polysynthetic twins in 10M modulated Ni-Mn-Ga martensite
J. Appl. Phys. 112, 063517 (2012)
Correlating whisker growth and grain structure on Sn-Cu samples by real-time scanning electron microscopy and
backscattering diffraction characterization
Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 221902 (2012)
Characterization of high-current electron beam interaction with metal targets
J. Appl. Phys. 110, 093304 (2011)

Additional information on J. Appl. Phys.

Journal Homepage: http://jap.aip.org/
Journal Information: http://jap.aip.org/about/about_the_journal
Top downloads: http://jap.aip.org/features/most_downloaded
Information for Authors: http://jap.aip.org/authors

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 131.170.6.51. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
A study of electron penetration in solids using a direct Monte Carlo approach
I. Adesida, a) R. Shimizu, b) and T. E. Everhart c)
Department of Electrical Engineering and the Electronics Research Laboratory, University of California,
Berkeley, California 94720

(Received 7 December 1979; accepted for publication 16 April 1980)

Fundamental characteristics of electron penetration in solids, such as energy and angular
distributions of transmitted electrons, have been theoretically calculated using a Monte Carlo
approach. The essential features of the Monte Carlo approach are the inclusion of the random
nature of inelastic scattering events, and also the extension of Gryzinski's semiempirical
expression for core electron excitation to valence electron excitation through the use of an
appropriate mean binding energy. A detailed comparison of the theoretical results for aluminum
and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) with experimental results show that the direct Monte
Carlo approach describes electron scattering events in solids very well. It is also shown that this
approach describes the energy distribution of transmitted electrons through thin films of
aluminum and PMMA more realistically than the Monte Carlo approaches utilizing Bethe's
stopping power equation.
PACS numbers: 79.20.Kz, 61.80.Mk

I. INTRODUCTION that have emerged from these attempts are the plural scatter-
ing theory K,9 for thin films and the multiple scattering the-
The understanding of electron-solid interactions is of ory10-12 for thick films. Brown et al. 13 ,14 applied a solution of
prime importance in the field of conventional transmission, the Boltzmann equation to study characteristic x ray pro-
scanning transmission, and scanning electron microscopy. duction. The form of the theoretical description given by the
The end products of electron-solid interactions which are foregoing categories is analytic. Analytic formulas are usual-
produced through the scattering of energetic electrons in ly optimized for a particular application.
solid specimens are diverse. For example, in scanning elec- Finally, the last category involves the simulation of
tron microscopy where primary electron beams of a few to electron trajectories using Monte Carlo (MC) calcula-
many kilovolts interact with solid specimens, information tions. 5.15-20 This perhaps is the most basic approach to study
signals such as secondary electrons, Auger electrons, x-rays, the penetration of electrons in solids since it provides a com-
backscattered electrons, to name a few, are generated. 1-3 The plete history of each electron as scattering progresses in a
spatial distribution and energy of the scattered electrons, as host solid. The major disadvantage of this technique is that a
well as the energy loss mechanism, must be known for a large number of electron trajectories must be simulated to
complete characterization of these signals and the contrasts obtain statistically valid results, and this makes it expensive
that they produce in observed images. in terms of computer time. However, the fact that many
Different theoretical descriptions of electron scattering different results can be obtained in a single run of a MC
in solids have been used, and they can be classified into three program does minimize the impact of the cost factor. The
categories. 4.s In the first category are the simple models de- MC technique has been used successfully by several authors
veloped by Everhart 6 and Archard. 7 Everhart 6 calculated to study secondary electron emission, Auger electron emis-
the electron backscatter coefficient as a function of atomic
number on the premise that backscattering is due to a single
large angle scattering event. Even though this model is based
on a simple approximation to a complex process, the predic-
\1 Continuous
tions are in reasonable agreement with experimental data Incident beam
SICtNing-down Modc-I
especially for materials oflow atomic number. Similarly, Ar-
chard 7 calculated the electron backscatter coefficient by as-
liE) \'.
, I
o c
suming that penetrating electrons underwent multiple small I
I I
I I
,
c
0
_ -
u
e
angle scattering which may be described in terms of diffu- , I
-::1-
<l>
: : 6E .oUJ
sion. This model is also in reasonable agreement with experi- 5"'0
(E-.6E) Actual : \'+-=dE. t 1I1 <l>
mental data especially for materials of high atomic number. Distribution,' • dS 0;:
Tronsmitt",d
A second category includes the various attempts to solve the el"ctron
>E
Boltzmann transport equation. 4,8-14 Examples of theories
0\1I1
~ C
ClI 0
C ~
UJ I-
"'Current address: National Research and Resource Facility for Submicron
Structures, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
Energy Loss llE
o
h'Current address: Department of Applied Physics, Osaka University, Osa-
ka, 565, Japan. FIG. I. Discrepancy in transmitted electron energy distribution between
"Current address: College of Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY experiment and Monte Carlo calculation using the continuous-slowing-
14853. down approximation.

5962 J. Appl. Phys. 51 (11), November 1980 0021-8979/80/115962-08$01.10 © 1981 American Institute of Physics 5962

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 131.170.6.51. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 2.0
AI
already shown that this approach predicts a more realistic
transmitted electron energy distribution for polymethy-
methacrylate (PMMA) films when compared with the
CSDA model. Calculations for thin films of aluminum have
been performed and are compared with experiments in Sec.
III. This approach will be referred to as the Direct-II MC
approach.
The CSDA model is well documented in literature5,15.17
°oL--------~-------1~O------~1~5------~20·
- - - Energy (keVl
and the Direct-I MC approach is described elsewhere by
FIG. 2. Ratio of total elastic cross section from the partial wave expansion
Shimizu et al. 19 The essential elements of the Direct-II ap-
method to that of screened Rutherford for two values of the screening pa- proach are presented here.
rameter of Nigam et al. (see Ref. 28).

II. ELEMENTS OF DIRECT-II MONTE CARLO

APPROACH
sion, backscattered electrons, energy dissipation, character- A. Elastic scattering
istic x ray production, and so forth. A general survey of the
The Rutherford differential scattering cross section
applications of MC calculations in Electron Probe Micro-
analysis (EPMA) and Scanning Electron Microscopy dO' Z2 e4
(2)
(SEM) is given in Ref. 20. df1 = 4E 2(1-cos(J+2flN)2'
Conventional MC calculations have been based on the
either in its screened or unscreened form has been widely
continuous slowing-down approximation (CSDA) using
used in MC calculations. In Eq. (2), z, (J, and e are atomic
Bethe's energy loss expressionY From previous data, the
number, angle of scattering after an elastic collision, and
CSDA describes the events in bulk samples satisfactorily;
electronic charge, respectively. f3N is an atomic screening
however, the approximation results in some essential fail-
parameter due to Nigam et al. 28 and is given as
ures when used for electrons penetrating through thin sam-
pies. 18,19,22 The specific failure is in regard to the energy dis- 5-43Z 2 / 3
flN = (3)
tribution of transmitted electrons through thin films as E
illustrated in Fig, 1. The CSDA model indicates that at least where E is the electron energy before collision in electron
a minimum amount of energy is lost by every electron pene- volts. A more precise elastic scattering cross section that has
trating through a thin film. Actually, inelastic scattering in
the thin film is random in nature, and there is some probabil-
ity that an electron may be transmitted with zero energy loss.
Attempts have been made to satisfactorily describe the e' beam
energy distribution oftransmitted electrons using MC calcu- 120keVI

lations. 18.19.23.25.44 The most successful so far is the direct

simulation technique. 19 In this technique, the statistical na-
ture of inelastic scattering processes (conduction electron,
plasmon, and core electron excitations), as well as the elastic
scattering process, are taken into account. This approach
described experimental results for thin films of aluminum
and copper with considerable success. 19 This approach is
hereafter referred to as the Direct-I MC approach.
The direct simulation technique, however, requires an
accurate knowledge of the excitation functions of inelastic
scatterings which, except for core electron excitation given
by Gryzinski's excitation function,24 are not available.
Hence, in the present work, we utilized a method proposed
by Shimizu and Everhart,25 who suggested an extension of
Gryzinski's excitation function to valence electrons 26 by in-
troducing a mean binding energy ED which satisfies

(" £1E (du(£1E») d£1E = (dE) _ (dE) ,

JE'" d£1E dS Bethe dS Core
(1)

over the energy range of interest. Eo and £1E are the primary
electron energy and energy loss, respectively. The differen-
tial term in the integral is Gryzinski's excitation function
which will be given in Eq. (4). A previous investigation 27 has
FIG. 3. Polar plot of Rutherford's differential scattering cross section for
PMMA at 2~ ke V. The curve ofO.5/3 v approximates that due to the partial-
wave expansIOn method.

5963 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 51. No. 11, November 1980 Adesida, Shimizu, and Everhart 5963

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 131.170.6.51. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 TABLE I. Mean binding energies used in Gryzinski's expression for inelas- I. 0 r-<J;;;;:::r;------------.0
tic excitations.
----1;-
Mean binding Energy (eV) 'T'J T

Material Core (L shell) a Valence" 0.5

Al 84.25 4.0
Si 111.6 4.0
PMMA 10.0
0=----=-"=-_ _- - - l L -_ _--....l1.0
"Values obtained from Handbook of Physics and Chemistry. o 0.5 1.0 1.5
"Ref. 25.
(a) Film thickness (fLm)

also been used is obtained numerically by partial-wave ex-

pansion method (pwem). 29 It has been shown that discrepan- 1.0 r-tO""iiQ;::a----=-----------,0
cies exist between Rutherford's and pwem cross sections,30
and results indicate that Rutherford's scattering cross sec- Aluminum
tion is a poor approximation even for a light element such as 20 keV
aluminum. Fortunately, the total cross section derived from 0.5 0.5
Rutherford's expression can be fitted to that from pwem. 22 .31
For aluminum, using 0.48PN in the screened Rutherford's
expression gave the best fit to the pwem over an energy range
O~----:~---...L.----...L-.....J 1.0
of 5 keY <.E<.20 keY as shown in Fig. 2. Equation (2) with a o 0.5 1.0 1.5
modified screening parameter of P ~ ( = 0.48PN ) was used in (b) Film thickness (fLm)
the Direct-II MC calculations for aluminum, silicon, and
FIG. 5. Transmission coefficients (7]r) and backscattering coefficients (nn)
PMMA. Figure 3 is a polar plot32 of Rutherford's differen-
for aluminum films at (a). IS keV and (b) 20 keV obtained using the present
tial scattering cross section for PMMA. For the unscreened Monte Carlo approach and experiment: Refs. 18 and 19 (open square), Ref.
form (i.e., PN = 0), the differential cross section becomes 34 (closed square), and Ref. 44 (open and closed circles).
infinitely large as (j approaches zero. Differences can also be
seen between usingPN andp ~ in Eq. (2) in the small scatter-
ing angle region «(j S IS°). This region roughly corresponds B.lnelastic scattering
to the region which Krefting and Reimer30 modelled with The two types of inelastic scattering considered in the
the Lewis equation. 12 Direct-II MC model were core (L-shell) electron and va-
lence electron excitations. Both were considered for alumi-
num and silicon, while for PMMA, only valence electron
excitation was considered. Gryzinski's excitation function
was used to describe both excitations. 25
Aluminum
L ~ shell Gryzinski's excitation function is written as
du(.dE)
d.dE
4
= Jle EB ( Eo )3/2(1 _ .dE)EHIEI< + 4E
.dE Eo Eo + EB
3
Eo
X{~~(l- ~)+ ~ In[2.7+ (Eo;8.dEyI2]) ,
0<1

(4)
o Valence
CL
where .dE, E 8' and Eo are energy loss, mean binding energy,
2 and primary energy, respectively. From the binary collision
~ 10
l.L model, the angular deflection of a penetrating electron after
c an electron-electron collision is given as 19
o
Q)

::2' sinw=(.dE/E)1/2, (5)

where E is the penetrating electron energy before collision. A
summary of the mean binding energies used in Eq. (4) is
shown in Table I.
10
10 C. Calculation procedure
Energy (keV) The calculation procedure for the direct MC approach
FIG. 4. Mean free paths for elastic and inelastic scatterings in aluminum. is quite similar to that of the CSDA approach. The differ-

5964 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 51, No. 11, November 1980 Adesida, Shimizu, and Everhart 5964

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 131.170.6.51. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 ith species. From Eq. (8), lis = 2.67 in the valence shell for
AI PMMA.
20keV The total mean free path of a penetrating electron is
0.3
~
lIAT = lIAei + lIA inei , (9)
dW and the distance travelled between collisions is
S= -AT InR, (10)
where R is a uniform random number (i.e., 0 < R <;;; 1).
Another uniform random number R2 was used,
11Ael
o 0.5 1.0 R 2 <;;;--, (11)
W = EIEO liAr
(a)
to determine whether a scattering event was elastic or inelas-
tic. Satisfaction of this inequality implied that an elastic
event had occurred and R2 was further used to determine
1.0,----.;;;:=------------, which atomic species acted as the scattering center. Howev-
er, if the inequality was not satisfied, an inelastic event had
'I'][W] AI occurred, and the type of inelastic event was determined by
20 keV using
0.!5
11Ael lIAel +11 AL
- - <R 2<;;; (12)
lIAT lIAT
and
lIAel +11 AL
(b) <R2<;;;1. (13)
lIAT
FIG. 6. (a) Energy spectrum of back scattered electrons for bulk aluminum
at 20 keY. Present Monte Carlo approach (histogram), and experiment:
Ref. 35-solid curve. (b) Integrated backscattered electron energy spectrum
for bulk aluminum at 20 keY. Present Monte Carlo approach-{:\ashed
curve and experiment: Ref. 36--solid curve.
15

Aluminum 2700A d'7T

15 KeV
dW
ences lie in the introduction ofP ~ for the elastic scattering /0

cross section and also in the incorporation of an extra deci-

sion making routine as regards inelastic scattering for the
direct Me approach. 5
For elastic scattering, the total Rutherford's scattering
cross section of an atom is given as

(6)
4Pt(1 +P~)E2 .
0.3 0.4 05 0.6 0.7
O'e/ =
(0)
For inelastic scattering, the total cross section from
40
Gryzinski's excitation function is given asI9.24.33 ,I
I

~ 30 d'7 T
6.51 X 10- 14 Ns (U -1 )3/2 Aluminum
15 KeV
I050A
! OW
O'inel = E~ U U +1 I

X[I + ~(1 -1I2U)ln(2.7 + (U _1)112], (7)

10
3300A
where U = E / E Band Ns is the number of electrons in a
o
particular shell. Ns for an element such as aluminum or sili- 5200A
con can be obtained easily. For example, L shell: Ns = 8, 5

valence shell: Ns = 3 for aluminum. For a compound like

PMMA with a chemical formula C5 H g 02' lis can be calcu-
lated from 0.3 0.4 0.5 06 0.7

(8)
where V; is the number of atoms of the ith species and 7lsi is
the number of electrons in a particular shell of an atom of the
(b)
FIG. 7. Energy distributions of transmitted electrons for different thick-
nesses ofaluminum films at 15 keY. Present Monte Carlo approach (open
and closed circles, and open square), Direct-I Monte Carlo approach (Ref.
19)-dashed curve, and experiment: Ref. 19-so1id curve.

5965 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 51, No. 11, November 1980 Adesida, Shimizu, and Everhart 5965

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 131.170.6.51. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
r--.------,-----.-----,------.-----.30
o 14[ AI
Aluminum 20 keV
20 KeV 0.12

!
i
I
0 10 I
CD
10
co I -- 86.4 }lg cm- 2
if)

N'" 0.08
r-l
I-
Z
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 "- 0.06 ~- 280.8
W = E/Eo CD
FlO. 8. Energy distribution of transmitted electrons for two thicknesses of z
aluminum films at 20 keY. Present Monte Carlo approach (open and closed '-'
0.04
circles), Direct-I Monte Carlo approach (Ref. 19)-dashed curve, and experi- ___ 486.0
ment- (Ref. 19)-solid curve.

The satisfaction ofEq. (12) meant anL-shell excitation while

Eq. (13) meant valence shell excitation. The mean free paths _.L_ .. j

for elastic events, L-shell excitation, and valence shell excita- 20 40

tion in aluminum are illustrated in Fig. 4. Scattering angle (degrees)
Other parameters such as azimuthal angle (¢ ), total FlO. 10. Angular distribution of transmitted electrons for three thicknesses
scattering angle (@), and electron position (x,y,z) were calcu- of aluminum films at 20 keY obtained using the present Monte Carlo
approach.

15
lated from expressions that have been used previously for
Aluminum
other Me approaches. 5 . 15-17
20 KeV 148.5 -- Energy loss t1E was calculated at each inelastic scatter-
10 ing event. However, for events where energy loss was less
(fL9 cm- 2 )

216.0
than the binding energy (i.e., t1E <EB ), we assumed a zero
2808
energy loss for that particular event. Energy loss was calcu-
lated by selecting a uniform random number R3 and then
finding a value of t1E that satisfied

05 06 0.7 O.B
R3 =idE En
du(t1E') liIE du(t1E').
I' JE H
(14)

(0 )
40r----·--·
I

<l>

Aluminum - - 30
o if)
U <l>
20 KeV if) ~
0>
'" <l>
-"0
.0_
20
o
.0

5 ~~
0..0>
c:
o

~ __~==~~~~~~~o o ...1 .__ ) ._ _ _ _.L..-_ _~I

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 O.B 0.9 1.0
W=E/Eo
o 100 200 300 400 500

(b) Film mass thickness (fL9 cm- 2 )

FlO. 9. Energy distributions of transmitted electrons for various thick- FlO. II. Most probable angle of scattering for various thicknesses of alumi-
nesses of aluminum films at 20 keY. (a) Present Monte Carlo approach, and num films at 20 keY obtained using the present Monte Carlo approach.
(b) experimental data (see Ref. 39). Experimental data (closed circle) from Ref. 40 are also shown.

5966 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 51, No. 11, November 1980 Adesida, Shimizu, and Everhart 5966

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 131.170.6.51. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 I.°r-'()G--o;;;:;;;::,;~~--=---------,O
must note, however, that other Me approaches 30 .38 ,44 have
"7r previously been used with some success to describe transmis-
"7e sion coefficients and backscattering parameters.
PMMA
0.8 20 keV 0.2
Energy distributions of transmitted electrons for alumi-
numfilmsatEo = 15 and 20keVareshown in Fig. 7 and Fig.

0.6 0.4
T I I I ,T
o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Film thickness (fL m ) 50

FIG. 12. Transmission and backscattering coefficients for PMMA films at 0.8"m
20 keY obtained using the present Monte Carlo approach. Experimental
data (open circle) of transmission coefficients obtained in this work are also PMMA
shown. 40
20 keV
1.2"m

This is the same method used in the conventional Me ap- 30

proach to calculate the angle of scattering after each elastic 1.6"m
~~T
event. In that evaluation, a uniform random number R4 is dW
also chosen and an angular deflection value () which satisfies

R4= it! C7e d{))dfl fT C7e d{))dfl, (15)

20

is calculated. This technique of calculating..::iE from Eq. (14)

has previously been used by Shimizu et al. 19 The calculated 10
energy loss was in tum used to calculate the scattering angle
after an inelastic event using Eq. (5). The number of simulat-
ed electron trajectories (NT) was between 5000 and 20 000.
o
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION O. 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0

Fundamental results such as transmission coefficient (a)

(TJ T)' back scattering coefficient (TJ 0)' energy spectrum of -_._------- ._---------,
backscattered electrons, energy and angular distributions of
transmitted electrons in various thicknesses of aluminum,
and PMMA films are presented in this section. Theoretical
results are those obtained with the present Me approach,
namely, the Direct-II Me model unless otherwise stated.
15
Detailed comparison with experiment is made.

A.Aluminum
Values of TJT and TJo for 15 and 20 keY electrons nor-
mally incident on thin films of aluminum are shown in Figs.
10
5(a) and 5(b). Experimental data of various authorsI9.3o.34.44 PMMA
are plotted for comparison. dVr
In Fig. 6(a), the theoretical energy spectrum of back- 20 keV dW
scattered electrons for bulk aluminum is compared with ex-
perimental curve of Matsukawa et al. 35 for 20 ke V incident
5
electrons. Figure 6(b) compares the integrated backscat-
tered electron energy spectrum with experimental data of
Darlington. 36 TJ( W) is the probability ofa backscattered elec-
tron having more than a fraction W of the incident beam
energy. Values ofTJo obtained for bulk aluminum were 0.18 o
at 15 ke V and 0.17 at 20 ke V. Experimentally, Drescher et 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
al. 37 obtained an electron backscatter coefficient of (b)
0.164 ± 0.012 for aluminum in the energy range from 9.3 to
25.2 keY. FIG. 13. (a) Energy distribution of transmitted electrons for PMMA films
at 20 keY obtained using the CSDA approach. (b) Energy distributions of
In general, the theoretical results from the Direct-II transmitted electrons for PMMA films at 20 keY obtained using the present
Me approach are in good agreement with experiment. We Monte Carlo approach.

5967 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 51, No. 11, November 1980 Adesida. Shimizu, and Everhart 5967

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 131.170.6.51. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
8, respectively. Results from the present MC approach
which are represented as points are compared with the re-
sults of the Direct-I MC approach (dashed curve) and ex-
perimental data (solid curve) of Shimizu et al. 19 More theo-
retical results from the present MC approach are shown in
Fig. 9(a), while the experimental data of Reimer et al. 39 are
shown in Fig. 9(b). Good agreement is found between theory
and experiment in all cases. Also, there is a good agreement
between the present MC approach and the more detailed
Direct-I MC approach.
The theoretical angular distributions of transmitted
electrons for aluminum at Eo = 20 ke V are shown in Fig. 10.
The angle associated with the peak of each distribution is
known as the most probable angle of scattering40 of electrons
at the specified thickness of aluminum. The theoretical re-
sults of the most probable angle of scattering as a function of
film mass thickness for aluminum at Eo = 20 keV is plotted
as a smooth curve in Fig. 11. The experimental results of
Cosslett and Thomas40 are shown as solid points in the fig-
ure. The bars on the experimental results represent the er-
rors associated with reading the angles from a plot. Good
agreement found between theory and experiment.
In comparison with the results of conventional MC ap-
proaches, 18 and also within the limits of experimental er-
rors,39 the present MC approach predicts experimental data
very well. The agreement with the more detailed Direct-I
MC approach 19 means that the present MC approach can be
used with confidence.
B. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)
Values of 17T and 17B for 20-keV electrons penetrating
through thin films of PMMA are shown in Fig. 12. Experi-
mental results of 17T obtained in this work are also shown.
Agreement between theory and experiment is noted. The
experimental results were obtained by measuring transmit-
ted currents through thin selfsupporting films of PMMA
using a negatively biased Faraday cage. The PMMA films
were prepared using the technique of Kim et al. 41 Each 171'
value was measured for a number oflow primary currents I p '
usually Ip <100 pA, and no variation was observed in 171"
Measurements were made at 20 keVin an ETEC Autoscan
SEM.
Values of 17 B obtained for bulk PMMA using the Di-
rect-II MC model were 0.09 and 0.098 at 10 and 20 keY,
respectively. Using the CSDA model, Shimizu and Ever-
hart42 obtained a value of 0.06 while in this work a value of
0.07 was obtained. Presently, no experimental data of 17 B for
PMMA are available. However, we can use the experimental
data on Be because the average atomic number of PMMA
and Be are very close. In the energy range of9.3 to 25.2 keY,
Drescher et al. 37 obtained an electron backscatter coefficient
of 0.05 for Be. The CSDA model agrees with this experimen-
tal data better than the Direct-II MC model.
Energy distributions of transmitted electrons for
PMMA films 27 at Eo = 20 keY are shown in Figs. 13(a) and
13(b). Results in Fig. 13(a) were calculated using the CSDA
approach, while results in Fig. 13(b) were calculated with
5968 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 51, No. 11, November 1980
Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 131.170.6.51. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
the present MC approach. Differences in the corresponding
spectra can be observed, and they agree with the discussion
in Sec. I. Although experimental results are not available,
using the results for aluminum films as a guide, we can con-
clude that the direct MC approach predicts a more realistic
transmitted electron energy spectrum than the CSDA
model.
IV. SUMMARY
A brief review of commonly used electron scattering
models has been presented and a direct Monte Carlo ap-
proach (called the Direct-II approach) to the simulation of
electron scattering events in solids has been described in de-
tail. The approach took into account the statistical nature of
inelastic scattering as well as elastic scattering. In addition,
the inelastic scattering process was separated into its compo-
nents--core electron and valence electron excitations. Gry-
zinski's excitation function was applied to core electron exci-
tation, and an extension of the same function was applied to
valence electron excitation as proposed by Shimizu and
Everhart. 25
Application of the Direct-II approach to aluminum
films shows a better agreement with experimental data of
energy and angular distributions of transmitted electrons
when compared to conventional MC approaches utilizing
the CSDA model. The Direct-II approach also gave a more
realistic answer for the transmitted electron energy distribu-
tion for PMMA films. Since energy and angular distribu-
tions are the most fundamental properties of electron scat-
tering, they constitute a sensitive test for any theoretical
model. Considering the good agreement between theory and
experiment, we may conclude that the Direct-II MC model
describes electron scattering in aluminum and PMMA very
well.
We must also mention that the Direct-II model predict-
ed a higher electron backscatter coefficient for materials
than the CSDA model. Factors contributing to the higher
17 B value are, firstly, the use of a half value of the screening
parameter in the Rutherford cross-section equation, and sec-
ond, the consideration of angular deflection for each inelas-
tic event. The first factor leads to a higher number of scatter-
ing events per incident electron. For the second factor,
inelastic events are usually small angle scattering events;
however, a series of small angle scatterings may cumulative-
ly become a large angle scattering. Both of these factors yield
a higher probability of electron backscattering. In the light
of recent experiments,45 further calculations are presently
being planned to see the effects of varying the binding energy
of valence electrons on electron backscattering, especially
for PMMA for which a relatively high 17B was obtained.
Agreement between the Direct-II approach and the
more detailed Direct-I M C model 19 was noted. An extension
of the Direct-II approach can therefore be made to other
materials for which all the inelastic excitation functions are
not available. Such extension has been made for silicon in the
course of evaluating this approach for electron beam lithog-
raphy applications. This is reported elsewhere.4-~
Adesida, Shimizu, and Everhart 5968
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Dr. M. Isaacson for pointing
out some recent works on the electron energy-loss spectrum
ofPMMA.
This work was supported by the Joint Services Elec-
tronics Program Contract F44620-76-C-OIOQ.
Ip. R. Thornton, Scanning Electron Microscopy (Chapman and Hall, Eng-
land,1968).
2T. E. Everhart and T. L. Hayes, Sci. Am. 226, 55 (1972).
'L. Reimer, Scanning 1, 3 (1977).
4D. J. Fathers and P. Rez, SEM I, 1979, p. 55.
'R. J. Hawryluk, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
1974.
"T. E. Everhart, J. App\. Phys. 31,1833 (1960).
7G. D. Archard, J. App\. Phys. 32,1505 (1961).
"G. Moliere, Z. Naturforsch A 3,78 (1948).
°v. Lenz, Z. Naturforsch A 9,185 (1954).
10H. S. W. Massey, Adv.Electron. 4, 1 (1952).
"s. A. Goudsmit and J. L. Saunderson, Phys.Rev. 57, 24 (1940).
12H. W. Lewis, Phys. Rev. 78, 526 (1950).
"D. Brown and R. Ogilvie, J. App\. Phys. 37, 4429 (1966).
14D. Brown, D. Wittry, and D. Kyser, J. App\. Phys. 40,1627, (1969).
15R. Shimizu and K. Murata, J. App\. Phys. 42, 387 (1971).
16L. Reimer, Optik (Stuttgart) 27,86 (1968).
17D. F. Kyser and K. Murata, IBM J. Res. Dev. 18, 352 (1974).
IHR. Shimizu, Y. Kataoka, T. Matsukawa, T. Ikuta, K. Murata, and H.
Hashimoto, J. App\. Phys. D 8,695 (1975).
lOR. Shimizu, Y. Kataoka, T. Ikuta, T. Koshikawa, and H. Hashimoto, 1.
App\. Phys. D 9,101 (1976).
20Use of Monte Carlo calculations in Electron Probe Microanalysis and
Scanning Electron Microscopy, edited by K. F. J. Heinrich, D. Newbury,
and H. Yakowitz (U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, DC, 1976).
21H. Bethe, Handb. Phys. 24, 519 (1933).
22R. Shimizu, Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on X-Ray Optics and Microanalysis,
Boston, MA, 1977 (unpublished).
23J. Henoc and F. Maurice, CEA-R-4615 (Commisariat a l'Energie Atomic
France, 1975); J. Henoc and F. Maurice, Ref. (20).
24M. Gryzinski, Phys. Rev. 138, A 336 (1965).
25R. Shimizu and T. E. Everhart, App\. Phys. Lett. 33, 784 (1978).
26Conduction electron excitation and plasmon excitation are grouped to-
gether under the term "valence electron excitation".
271. Adesida, R. Shimizu, and T. E. Everhart, App\. Phys. Lett. 33, 849
(1978).
2MB. P. Nigam, M. K. Sundaresan, and Ta-You Wu, Phys. Rev. 115,491
(1959).
2°N. M. Mott and H. S. W. Massey, Thr Theory of Atomic Collisions (Clar-
endon, Oxford, 1963).
30L. Reimer and E. Krefting, in Ref. (20).
31y. Yamazaki, Ph.D. thesis University of Osaka, Japan, 1977.
32H. Niedrig, SEM 11978, p. 841.
33C.J. Powell, in Ref. (20).
34H. Niedrig, Opt. Acta 24, 679 (1977).
"T. Matsukawa, R. Shimizu, and H. Hashimoto, J. App\. Phys. D 7,695
(1974).
36E.H. Darlington, J. App\. Phys. D 8,85 (1975).
37H. Drescher, L. Reimer, and H. Seidel, Z. Angew Phys. 29, 331 (1970).
'"R. Shimizu, T. Ikuta, and K. Murata, J. App\. Phys. 43, 4233 (1972).
39L. Reimer, K. Brockmann, and U. Rhein, J. App\. Phys. D 11, 2151
(1978).
41IV. E. Coss1ett and R. N. Thomas, Brit.1. App\. Phys. 15, 883 (1964); R. N.
Thomas, Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University, 1961.
41J. Kim, H. Sampson and T. E. Everhart, J. Vac. Sci. Techno\. 10,1005
(1973).
42R. Shimizu and T. E. Everhart, Optik (Stuttgart) 36,59 (1972).
43 1. Adesida, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, 1979.
44E. Krefting and L. Reimer, Quantitative Analysis with Electron Micro-
probe and Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry, edited by E. Preuss (Zentra1-
bibliotek der KFA, Ju1ich Gmbh, 1973), p. 114
45J. J. Risko, L. J. Brillson, R. W. Bigelow, and T. J. Fabish, J. Chern. Phys.
69, 3931 (1978).

5969 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 51, No. 11, November 1980 Adesida, Shimizu, and Everhart 5969

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 131.170.6.51. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions