Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252

www.elsevier.com/locate/microrel

Improved estimation of the resistivity of pure copper and

electrical determination of thin copper ®lm dimensions q
Constance E. Schuster 1, Mark G. Vangel, Harry A. Scha€t *
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001, USA
Received 11 July 2000; received in revised form 2 September 2000

Abstract
Improved values for the resistivity, q, of pure, bulk copper from 50 to 1200 K, and their con®dence intervals, are
developed by extending the analysis of Matula. A recommended value for dq=dT and its con®dence interval in the
temperature range of 290±425 K is developed for use with Matthiessen's rule to calculate the electrical thickness of thin
copper ®lms and the cross-sectional area of copper lines from resistance measurements at two temperatures. Error
analyses are used to estimate the uncertainty with which the electrical thickness and cross-sectional area can be de-
termined. Values for the temperature coecient of resistance of pure, bulk copper are also provided. Ó 2001 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction is not exactly constant in this range. To arrive at these

With continuing dimensional reductions of inter-
connects and demands for enhanced integrated circuit
(IC) performance, the semiconductor industry is in the
process of replacing aluminum with copper as the in-
terconnect metal because of copper's lower resistivity
and greater resistance to electromigration and stress
voiding [1].
The transition from aluminum to copper intercon-
nects was the motivation to ®nd existing recommended
values for the resistivity, q, of pure, bulk copper as a
function of temperature. These values were found in the
extensive work of Matula [2]. But, only a relatively few
of these recommended values fall within the temperature
range of our interest (approximately room temperature
to 150°C). Moreover, it was not clear how to arrive at a
value for dq=dT and its con®dence interval when dq=dT
q mates of the median time to failure and the spread of
This work was supported in part by the Oce of
Microelectronics Programs at the National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology (NIST); not subjected to copyright.
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +1-301-948-4081.
E-mail address: scha€t@nist.gov (H.A. Scha€t).
1
No longer at NIST.
0026-2714/01/$ - see front matter Ó 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 2 6 - 2 7 1 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 2 2 7 - 4
quantities took us along a path that ultimately led to the
development of a modi®cation of Matula's approach [2]
that resulted in improved recommended values for the
resistivity of pure, bulk copper from 50 to 1200 K. This
modi®cation may well be applicable to developing im-
proved recommended values for the resistivity as a
function of temperature of other metals.
Our interest in a value for dq=dT and its con®dence
interval stems from the desire to estimate the accuracy of
the method described here. The method uses Matthies-
sen's rule [3] and electrical resistance measurements, at
two temperatures, to determine the electrical thickness
and cross-sectional area of copper interconnects. Such
dimensions can be determined at wafer level from elec-
trical measurements of special test structures.
Cross-sectional area determinations of interconnect
lines are needed in accelerated stress tests to characterize
lines for failure due to electromigration. These tests
subject a number of test lines to high temperature and
high current-density stresses until failure. Sample esti-
individual failure times are the measures by which such
characterizations are made. Hence, there is the need to
know the cross-sectional area in order to determine the
current needed to attain the desired current-density
stress in these characterization tests.
240 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252
The organization of the paper is as follows:
1. A method is reviewed to show how the electrical
thickness of copper ®lms and the cross-sectional area
of copper interconnect lines can be calculated from
resistance measurements taken at two temperatures.
These calculations require knowledge of the change
in resistivity of pure copper with temperature, dq=
dT , which is approximately constant over the temper-
ature range where such resistance measurements can
be conveniently made.
2. Improved recommended values for the resistivity of
copper from 50 to 1200 K and their con®dence inter-
vals are developed and tabulated by using the exten-
sive compilation of Matula [2] and extending his
analysis of the resistivity of very dilute alloy speci-
mens of bulk copper.
3. A recommended value for dq=dT and its 95% con-
®dence interval for the temperature range of 290±
425 K (17±152°C) is developed from these improved
values for resistivity. This is the temperature range
within which it is recommended that electrical de-
terminations of the dimensions of copper lines be
made.
4. From the values of q…T † and dq=dT for pure copper,
the temperature coecient of resistance, TCR…T †, for
two reference temperatures are provided for use in
making qualitative assessments of the purity and de-
fect density of a copper specimen [4].
5. And, estimates are made of the precision with which
the electrical thickness of ®lms and the electrical
cross-sectional area of lines can be measured within
a given laboratory (repeatability).
2. Electrical measurement of interconnect dimensions
A generic expression for the resistivity of a dilute
alloy of a metal at temperature T may be given by
q…T † ˆ qPB …T † ‡ qr …c† ‡ D…c; T †; …
where qPB …T † is the resistivity of the pure metal (also
referred to later as intrinsic resistivity), qr …c† the residual
resistivity of the metal, which is dependent only on the
impurity and defect concentration in the metal, and
D…c; T † a residual resistivity that is dependent on tem-
perature as well as on the impurity and defect concen-
tration in the metal.
If Matthiessen's rule holds exactly, the third term is
zero and the result is that the change in the resistivity
with temperature of the pure metal, qPB …T †, is equal to
that for the metal alloy, q…T †, namely that:
dqPB dq
ˆ : …
dT dT
Given a mean value for dqPB =dT for copper in a
certain temperature range, the thickness of a copper ®lm
and the cross-sectional area of a copper line can be
calculated, respectively, from measurements of the sheet
resistance and the line resistance at two temperatures
within this range. Neglecting the e€ect of thermal ex-
pansion, ®lm thickness can be calculated from the
change in sheet resistance, RS , with temperature from
  1
dq dRS
t ˆ PB : …3†
dT dT
The sheet resistance can be determined from the re-
sistance of a van der Pauw cross test structure [5]. The
cross-sectional area, A, of a line of length L can be
calculated from a measurement of the change in resis-
tance of the line, R, with temperature from
  1
dq dR
A ˆ L PB : …4†
dT dT
But Matthiessen's rule is not obeyed exactly. Devia-
tions from Matthiessen's rule have been reported for a
variety of metals, including copper [6]. Such deviations
impact the above two equations by the multiplicative
factor …1 †, where  ˆ …dq=dT †=…dqPB =dT †. The pa-
rameter is a correction factor that indicates how much
the estimates of the metal ®lm thickness or the cross-
sectional area is altered by a deviation from Matthies-
sen's rule.
Deviations are often displayed in the literature by
plotting the ratio of D…c; T †=qr …c† with temperature for
di€erent small concentrations, c, of an additive metal.
The residual resistivity, qr …c†, serves as a scaling factor
which removes the dependence of the ratio on c and
permits a comparison of D…c; T † for di€erent impurities
in the host metal [6]. For increasing temperatures to
room temperature and beyond, the curves for di€erent
dilute copper alloys of a given additive tend to converge.
Based on the data for separate additives (from 0.05 to
1.0 at.%) of gold, germanium, nickel, and tin [6±8], the
1† values for the ratio D…c; T †=qr …c†, which we will refer to
as c, fall within the range of approximately 0.04±0.13.
Values for the slope of the change of the ratio with
temperature, S ˆ …1=qr …c††dD…c; T †=dT , fall approxi-
mately within the range of 0.0001 to 0.0007 °C 1 .
One can express  in terms of the slope, S, and the
ratio c by starting with an expression for the tempera-
ture coecient of resistance:
1 dq
TCR…T † ˆ
q dT
 
1 dqPB dD
ˆ …qPB …T † ‡ qr …c† ‡ D…c; T †† ‡ :
dT dT
…5†
2†
Noting that
 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252
dD=dT
qr …c† ‡ D…c; T † ˆ …1 c†; …
S sured to obtain data sets 35 and 36 were from the same
the following expression for  may be obtained:
TCR…T †
1 TCRPB …T †
ˆ
; …
TCR…T † 1‡c
S
1 residual resistivity of 0.00276 lX cm). Matula used a
where TCRPB …T † ˆ …1=qPB …T ††…dqPB =dT †. The value
determined in this work for TCRPB …25°C† is 0.003936
°C 1 .
From the above equation, it is seen that the impact of
the deviation from Matthiessen's rule is dependent not
just on the slope S and the ratio c, but also on the
temperature coecient of resistance of the copper ®lm,
which is dependent on the impurity level of the metal.
The magnitude of the impact is expected to be relatively
small, less than approximately 2%, if one uses the
maximum range of values found for S and c in the lit-
erature. The maximum values quoted above for S and c
are used in the equation to determine …1 † for two
values of TCR (25°C), 0.0037 and 0.0034 °C 1 , that are
intended to approximate a moderate and a low value for
TCR(T) that might be expected for a copper intercon-
nect. For the larger TCR, the correction factor, …1 †,
ranges from 0.998 to 1.009; for the smaller TCR, the
range is from 0.996 to 1.023.
The level of impurities in commercial copper inter-
connects has been reported to be small, of the order of
several tens of parts per million [9]. Such small levels
suggest that the deviations from Matthiessen's rule in
commercial copper will not introduce important errors
in estimates of the dimensions of copper interconnects.
Experience with using Matthiessen's rule to determine
the thickness of sub-micron thick aluminum-alloy ®lms
indicate equally small corrections and thicknesses that
agree to within a few percent of SEM measurement re-
sults [10].
3. Resistivity data analysis
3.1. Data sets for intrinsic resistivity of pure, bulk copper
The work of Matula [2], published in 1979, provides
the most comprehensive and detailed data compilation
that was found in the literature for the resistivity of very
dilute alloys of bulk copper as a function of tempera-
ture.
Matula used three sets of resistivity data to develop
the recommended values for the intrinsic resistivity of
pure, bulk copper that are given in his paper. They were
identi®ed as data sets 35, 36, and 124, which include a
total of 61 resistivity values over the temperature range
from 50 to 1200 K. These values are listed in Table 1. He
selected these three sets for their purity and clearly
241
stated measurement conditions. The specimens mea-
6†
source material. Original sources for data sets 35 and 36
indicated a residual resistivity of 0.00172 lX cm for the
specimens. The original source for data set 124 indicated
7† a residual resistivity of 0.00275 lX cm (Matula cites a
residual resistivity of 0.0020 lX cm for the materials
used to obtain his recommended resistivity values.
A more recent survey that includes copper resistivity
data was made by Ho et al. [11]. Most of the data are for
concentrated binary alloys. But, data for pure copper
are included and are equivalent to Matula's recom-
mended values for total resistivity without correction for
thermal expansion.
The most recent resistivity data for high-purity cop-
per over a wide temperature range were collected by
Dobrosavljevic and Maglic [12]. This data set, uncor-
rected for thermal expansion, was collected using a
sample prepared from a material known as National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Research
Material 5 (RM5). Initially released in 1977 as a heat
capacity test specimen, RM5 claims a purity of 99.999%.
Dobrosavljevic and Maglic made resistivity measure-
ments for temperatures over the range of 300±1350 K
and reported deviations of 0.03% to 0.8% from Ho's
(and Matula's) recommended values for total resistivity,
uncorrected for thermal expansion.
3.2. Matula's approach to develop recommended values
for resistivity
Matula [2] took a number of steps to develop his
recommended values for the intrinsic resistivity of pure,
bulk copper. The data sets he used contained values for
the total resistivity that were uncorrected for thermal
expansion. To convert these values to intrinsic resistiv-
ity, they were reduced by the amount of the reported
values for the residual resistivity for each set. To obtain
an initial ®t to the values for intrinsic resistivity from
data sets 35, 36, and 124, the following variant, G2 …T †,
of the Bloch±Gr uneisen form was used:
  p   
BT h CT h CT
G2 …T † A 1 ‡ ‡D U ;
h CT T T
…8†
where A, B, C, D, h, and p are constants and where
Z x
4 z5 ez
U…x† ˆ 5 dz: …9†
x 0 …ez 1†2
This form, developed from Boltzmann transport
theory, is widely used [13] to model the intrinsic resis-
tivity of pure, monovalent metals over wide ranges of
temperatures. It is able to represent behaviors at high
and low temperatures neglected in the derivation of the
242 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252

Table 1
Resistivity values of data sets 35, 36, and 124 from 50 to 1200 K
T (K) q (lX cm) Data set (#) T (K) q (lX cm) Data set (#)
50 0.0528 124 280.5 1.594 36
60 0.0978 124 285.3 1.626 36
70 0.156 124 290.3 1.663 36
80 0.218 124 290.9 1.664 36
85 0.248 35 290.9 1.667 36
90 0.282 35 292.1 1.67 36
90 0.283 124 292.4 1.676 36
100 0.35 35 293.1 1.682 36
100 0.353 124 295 1.7 124
110 0.418 35 300 1.725 35
120 0.488 35 309.2 1.787 36
120 0.493 124 325 1.893 35
130 0.558 35 325 1.892 36
140 0.631 35 331.5 1.936 36
140 0.638 124 342 2.005 36
150 0.702 35 350 2.062 35
160 0.778 124 352.6 2.075 36
175 0.876 35 375 2.229 35
180 0.923 124 381.6 2.269 36
200 1.047 35 382.2 2.275 36
200 1.06 124 433.1 2.617 36
220 1.2 124 482.4 2.955 36
225 1.219 35 666.4 4.224 36
250 1.389 35 678 4.324 36
250 1.4 124 768.8 4.98 36
273 1.55 124 865.1 5.692 36
273.16 1.546 35 972.7 6.525 36
275 1.556 35 1066.7 7.309 36
278.4 1.578 36 1066.9 7.268 36
279.3 1.586 36 1165.2 8.16 36
280.1 1.593 36

original Bloch±Gr uneisen form. Also, the replacement
of the Debye temperature, h, with an e€ective Debye
temperature, …h CT †, permits the representation of
changes in the e€ective Debye temperature with tem-
perature [2].
In arriving at the initial ®t to the data, Matula re-
ported the following values for the coecients of
G2 …T †: A ˆ 1:8089  10 8 X m, B ˆ 5:9991  10 3 ,
C ˆ 0:04563, D ˆ 6:476  10 4 , h ˆ 310:8 K, and
p ˆ 1:84. To obtain a ®nal ®t to the data, Matula re-
ported smoothing a plot of the fractional deviations
versus temperature and adding the result to the initial ®t
to obtain smoothed resistivity data from 50 to 1200 K. A
correction for thermal expansion was then applied to the
smoothed data. He provided recommended values for
the intrinsic resistivity, qi …T †, of copper at 26 tempera-
tures from 50 to 1200 K. To obtain values for the re-
sistivity at temperatures between those for which the
recommended values were provided, Matula suggested
using a linear interpolation of loge qi …T † versus loge T .
Additional resistivity values are provided by Matula [2]
for temperatures down to 20 K and up to 1357.6 K.
Values for the resistivity of liquid copper from 1357.6 to
1700 K are also provided by Matula [2].
3.3. Extension of Matula's approach
3.3.1. Initial attempts and analysis
A least-squares ®t of the G2 …T † form to the experi-
mental data led to resistivity values essentially equiva-
lent to those obtained from the initial ®t reported by
Matula with the above mentioned parameter values.
But, the values for the parameters were di€erent. An
examination of the ®tted G2 …T † curve of Matula showed
systematic deviations from the experimental data at
both ends of the temperature range. The deviations are
larger at the low temperatures than they are at the high
temperatures. This is shown in Fig. 1 where the dashed
line is the initial ®tted curve of Matula (before smooth-
ing) and the dots are the experimental data from the
three data sets.
These deviations are explainable by noting that a
least-squares analysis of the resistivity data gives equal
weight to all di€erences between the resistivity data and
 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252
Fig. 1. Experimental data for copper resistivity from data sets
35, 36, and 124 (), least squares ®t by Matula [2] of the G2 …T †
form to the experimental data before smoothing (


), and the
G2 …T †NIST ®t to the experimental data (±±).
the ®tted curve. At even lower temperatures, these dif-
ferences become smaller as the values of resistivity ap-
proach and are bounded by zero. But, the relative
di€erences can be substantial. At high temperatures, the
di€erences tend to be larger. Hence, the ®t is dominated
by the di€erences at the higher temperatures.
To improve this situation, a least-squares ®t of the
loge of the resistivity was performed over the tempera-
ture range of 50±1200 K. The parameters of the G2 …T †
form were varied to minimize QL , where:
Xh i2
QL ˆ loge q…T †j loge …qR ‡ G2 …T †j † : …10†
j Cˆ
In this case, equal weight is given to the fractional dif-
ferences between the resistivity data, q…T †j , and the ®tted
curve. A constant was added to G2 …T † to represent the
presence of a residual resistivity, qR , in the values of the
three data sets. This permitted the direct use of the total
resistivity values in the three data sets without making
any assumptions about the residual resistivity.
To achieve convergence, the following ®tting proce-
dure was used. The starting value for qR was zero and
the value for the Debye temperature, h, was kept con-
stant and equal to the value used by Matula, i.e. 310.8
K. The nonlinear parameters, C and p, were initially
held constant at the values reported by Matula and the
linear parameters, A, B, D, and qR , were allowed to
vary. Then, C and p were permitted to vary while pa-
rameters A, B, D, and qR were held ®xed at their es-
tablished values. This process was repeated by using the
newly arrived at values for C and p until convergence
was achieved.
An analysis of the results of this ®tting procedure
revealed that the standard error for the ®t is small, while
the standard errors for the parameters are very large. It
was gratifying to ®nd that the estimated value for the
243
residual resistivity, qR , was 0.0034 lX cm and had a
standard error of 0.0011 lX cm. This value for qR is well
within two standard errors of the value for the residual
resistivity used by Matula, i.e. 0.0020 lX cm, and within
the values reported for data sets 35 and 36 (0.00172
lX cm) and for data set 124 (0.00275 lX cm).
Further analysis showed that estimates of parameters
B and C are extremely correlated (>0.99999) and other
parameters are highly correlated as well. This led to the
conclusion that the G2 …T † form described in Eq. 8 is over
parameterized. This means that there are many combi-
nations of values for the parameters of the G2 …T † form
that will lead to very nearly the same ®t. If parameter B
is left out of the G2 …T † form, the ®t will converge easily
when all parameters are allowed to vary. With B in-
cluded, convergence could not be achieved without using
the iterative procedure described above.
3.3.2. Final ®t of experimental data to G2 …T † form
A ®nal ®t to G2 …T † was conducted in the iterative
manner described above except that, like Matula, the
experimental data (sets 35, 36, and 124) were ®rst con-
verted to intrinsic resistivity by subtracting the reported
residual resistivity from the data in each set. This pro-
cedure led directly to a satisfactory ®t to the data over
the entire temperature range given by G2 …T †NIST . The
best parameter estimates obtained for G2 …T †NIST are:
8
Aˆ 1:816013  10 X m;
Bˆ 2:404851  10 ; 3
4:560643  10 2 ;
D ˆ 5:976831  10 3 ;
p ˆ 1:838419;
h ˆ 310:8 K;
qR ˆ 0:00018 lX cm:
The small value for the parameter qR constitutes the
residue of the residual resistivity in the ®tting process.
The G2 …T †NIST is plotted in Fig. 1 where it can be com-
pared with the initial ®t made by Matula and the ex-
perimental data.
A conventional measure for the variability of the
experimental data about a ®tted curve is the sum of the
squared deviations (SSD). This measure was used to
evaluate the quality of the ®t of G2 …T †NIST to the ex-
perimental data, q…T †j (data sets 35, 36, and 124), where
Xh i2
SSD ˆ loge q…T †j loge …G2 …T †NIST †j : …11†
j
The value obtained for SSD was 0.00123. The root mean
square, RMS, of the deviations is given by the square
root of SSD divided by the degrees of freedom, which
are 55 (number of data values, 61, minus the number of
244 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252

parameters, 6). The root mean square value for the
NIST data is 0.00473.
By way of comparison, the same measure (SSD) was
used for Matula's recommended values for resistivity.
Using the recommended resistivity values of Matula to
obtain log-interpolated values of resistivity at the tem-
peratures of the experimental data, the SSD for the ®t to
the experimental data was found to be 0.08477. The root
mean square of the deviations is therefore 0.0393. This
value is over eight times as large as the RMS value ob-
tained for the ®t of G2 …T †NIST to the experimental data.
3.3.3. Correction of G2 …T †NIST for thermal expansion
The ®nal step was to make the small correction for
thermal expansion of the G2 …T †NIST values, which was
done by using
 
DL
qcorr: …T † ˆ quncorr: …T † 1 ‡ ; …12†
L…T0 †
where T0 ˆ 293 K; DL ˆ L…T † L…T0 †, and it is as-
sumed that the volume thermal expansion coecient is
equal to three times the linear thermal expansion coef-
®cient. Recommended values for DL=L…T0 †, in percent,
were obtained from Table 12R in Ref. [14] where:
vals for the resistivity as a function of temperature were
calculated in the way described in Appendix A.1. Be-
tween 200 and 1200 K, the half-width of the 95% con-
®dence interval of the ®t of G2 …T †NIST is less than 0.2%.
Below 200 K, the half-width increases steeply with de-
creasing temperature to a value of approximately 14% at
50 K.
The values provided in Table 2 are an improvement
over those provided by Matula [2] for a number of
reasons: (1) the value for the resistivity can be evaluated
at any temperature and the procedure for obtaining
these values can be duplicated by the reader, if desired;
(2) these values can be used to develop estimates for
dq=dT and their con®dence intervals, as discussed next;
and (3) the recommended values provide an improved ®t
to the experimental data, on the basis that the root mean
square of the di€erences between the predicted and the
experimental values for resistivity is signi®cantly smaller
than that when using the resistivity values and the in-
terpolation procedure recommended by Matula.
5. dq…T†=dT of copper and its con®dence interval

DL Calculating an estimate for dq=dT and its con®dence

…%† ˆ 0:2826 ‡ 1:073  10 3 …T 100†
L…T0 † interval is complicated by the fact that the form for the
‡ 2:904  10 6 …T 100†2 4:548 resistivity for pure metals predicts a non-constant
3
dq=dT . Over the temperature range of interest, the slope,
 10 9 …T 100† …13† dq=dT , is almost constant, but not quite. This is illus-
trated in Fig. 2, where values for dq…T †=dT (solid line)
for 100 K 6 T 6 293 K, and are plotted with their 95% con®dence interval (dashed
DL lines) as a function of temperature from 200 to 600 K.
…%† ˆ 1:685  10 3 …T 293† ‡ 2:702
L…T0 † The values for dq=dT drawn in Fig. 2 were obtained by
using the ®tted function G2 …T †NIST to calculate the dif-
 10 7 …T 293†2 ‡ 1:149
ference between the intrinsic resistivity at one-half a
 10 10
…T 293†3 …14† degree below and above each degree. The method for
calculating the uncertainty of dq=dT is described in
for 293 K 6 T 6 1300 K. Below 100 K, a linear ap- Appendix A.1
proximation was used so that It is expected that resistance measurements to cal-
DL culate the physical dimensions of copper interconnects
…%† ˆ 0:00354 ‡ 7:2  10 6 T …15† will be made within the range of approximately room
L…T0 †
temperature to 425 K. This temperature range is indi-
for 50 K 6 T 6 100 K. cated by the two vertical lines at 290 and 425 K. Con-
So that Eqs. (13) and (14) will agree at 293 K, the servative estimates for dq=dT and its 95% con®dence
temperature independent term in Eq. (13) is di€erent interval were determined in the following way. An esti-
from the value used in Ref. [14] ( 0.281). mate for the con®dence interval over the temperature
range from 290 to 425 K can be determined by the
highest and the lowest extent of the temperature-
4. Temperature dependence of copper and its con®dence dependent con®dence intervals within this temperature
interval range, which is 0.006821 and 0.006672 lX cm K 1 , re-
spectively. The estimate for dq=dT within this tem-
The values for the intrinsic resistivity, G2 …T †NIST , perature range is taken to be the center line between
corrected for thermal expansion, of pure, bulk copper the greatest extent of the con®dence intervals. Hence,
are given in Table 2 in 10°C increments with one-stan- the mean value for dq=dT and its 95% con®dence in-
dard-deviation con®dence intervals. Con®dence inter- terval is:
 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252 245

Table 2
Resistivity …lX cm† of pure, bulk copper and its one-standard-deviation con®dence interval from 50 to 1200 K. To obtain values for the
resistivity at a temperatures not given, use a linear interpolation of loge q…T † versus loge T
T (K) q…T † (lX cm) s.d. (lX cm) T (K) q…T † (lX cm) s.d. (lX cm)
50 0.049986 0.00385 310 1.790548 0.000868
60 0.094907 0.00266 320 1.857888 0.000882
70 0.150515 0.002237 330 1.925271 0.000894
80 0.213125 0.001684 340 1.992711 0.000904
90 0.279940 0.001359 350 2.060219 0.000914
100 0.349075 0.001269 360 2.127807 0.000922
110 0.419366 0.001283 370 2.195486 0.000931
120 0.490088 0.001304 380 2.263264 0.000939
130 0.560828 0.0013 390 2.331152 0.000948
140 0.631358 0.001267 400 2.399157 0.000958
150 0.701565 0.001211 410 2.467287 0.000969
160 0.771403 0.001141 420 2.535549 0.000982
170 0.840866 0.001067 430 2.603949 0.000997
180 0.909970 0.000994 440 2.672494 0.001015
190 0.978746 0.000928 450 2.741189 0.001036
200 1.047228 0.000872 460 2.810040 0.00106
210 1.115452 0.000829 470 2.879053 0.001086
220 1.183454 0.0008 480 2.948231 0.001116
230 1.251271 0.000784 490 3.017579 0.001149
240 1.318935 0.000779 500 3.087102 0.001184
250 1.386475 0.000782 510 3.156804 0.001222
260 1.453922 0.000792 520 3.226688 0.001262
270 1.521299 0.000806 530 3.296759 0.001304
273 1.541502 0.000810 540 3.367019 0.001349
280 1.588630 0.000821 550 3.437473 0.001394
290 1.655936 0.000837 560 3.508123 0.001441
293 1.676126 0.000842 570 3.578973 0.001489
298 1.709776 0.000850 580 3.650025 0.001538
300 1.723236 0.000853 590 3.721283 0.001587
307 1.770352 0.000864 600 3.792749 0.001636
610 3.864427 0.001684 910 6.124288 0.002209
620 3.936318 0.001733 920 6.203606 0.002187
630 4.008426 0.00178 930 6.283202 0.002164
640 4.080752 0.001827 940 6.363078 0.002141
650 4.153300 0.001873 950 6.443236 0.002119
660 4.226071 0.001917 960 6.523677 0.002099
670 4.299068 0.00196 970 6.604404 0.002081
680 4.372294 0.002001 980 6.685418 0.002068
690 4.445750 0.00204 990 6.766721 0.00206
700 4.519438 0.002077 1000 6.848315 0.002059
710 4.593362 0.002112 1010 6.930202 0.002066
720 4.667523 0.002144 1020 7.012384 0.002084
730 4.741923 0.002174 1030 7.094863 0.002112
740 4.816564 0.002201 1040 7.177640 0.002154
750 4.891448 0.002226 1050 7.260718 0.00221
760 4.966578 0.002248 1060 7.344098 0.002281
770 5.041955 0.002266 1070 7.427783 0.002368
780 5.117581 0.002282 1080 7.511775 0.002471
790 5.193458 0.002294 1090 7.596074 0.002592
800 5.269589 0.002304 1100 7.680684 0.002729
810 5.345975 0.00231 1110 7.765607 0.002883
820 5.422618 0.002313 1120 7.850843 0.003055
830 5.499520 0.002313 1130 7.936396 0.003242
840 5.576683 0.002309 1140 8.022267 0.003446
850 5.654108 0.002303 1150 8.108458 0.003666
860 5.731799 0.002293 1160 8.194971 0.003902
(continued on next page)
246 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252

Table 2 (continued )
T (K) q…T † (lX cm) s.d. (lX cm) T (K) q…T † (lX cm) s.d. (lX cm)
870 5.809756 0.002281 1170 8.281809 0.004153
880 5.887981 0.002266 1180 8.368973 0.00442
890 5.966477 0.002249 1190 8.456465 0.004702
900 6.045245 0.00223 1200 8.544288 0.004999

Fig. 2. dq=dT as a function of temperature for pure, bulk copper and its 95% con®dence interval (- - -).

dq 1 (TCR) for pure, bulk copper for 0°C and 25°C, with
ˆ 0:006747  0:000075 lX cm K …1:1%†:
dT their 95% con®dence intervals:

A conservative estimate of the standard uncertainty TCR…0°C†max ˆ 0:004368  0:000049 °C 1 ; and

of dq=dT is 3:7  10 5 which was obtained by dividing
the half-width of the 95% con®dence interval shown in
Fig. 2 (0.0000745) by the 97.5 percentile of the Student's
t distribution with 55 degrees of freedom. A conservative
estimate of the relative standard uncertainty is 0.0055,
which was obtained by dividing the standard uncertainty
by the mean value for dq=dT (0.006747). The above
value for dq=dT compares favorably with the value of
0:006750  10 6 lX cm K 1 obtained from a linear re-
gression analysis of the recommended resistivity values
of Matula over the temperature range of 293±400 K.
6. Temperature coecient of resistivity of copper
Using the above determined values for dq…T †=dT for
pure, bulk copper and the values for the resistivity of
pure copper (in Table 2) leads to the following values for
the temperature coecient of resistivity, or resistance,
TCR…25°C†max ˆ 0:003936  0:000044 °C 1 :
To convert an experimentally determined value of
TCR…T † at temperature T to a reference or other tem-
perature, TR , use the following equation:
TCR…T †
TCR…TR † ˆ : …16†
1 ‡ TCR…T †…TR T†
The TCR at any given temperature for pure, bulk
copper is the maximum value achievable. Any impurity
addition to copper will serve to increase its resistivity
and hence decrease the TCR…T † because it is inversely
dependent on the resistivity. Note that the degree to
which the measured TCR…T † of a copper specimen is less
than the maximum value at that temperature is not
necessarily a direct measure of its level of impurity be-
cause the increase in resistivity is also a function of the
impurity element, as well as its concentration.
 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252
7. Uncertainty of ®lm thickness and line-area estimates
7.1. Introduction
Estimates of the mean electrical thickness of a thin
copper ®lm and the mean electrical cross-sectional area
of a copper conductor can be obtained from measure-
ments of resistance of special test structures at two
temperatures and the use of the value of dq=dT devel-
oped in this paper. The structures considered here are
those that are formed in processes involved in fabricat-
ing semiconductor integrated circuits. The temperatures
at which these resistance measurements are made are
assumed to be within the range of room temperature to
approximately 150°C. It is within this range that the
mean value for dq=dT and its uncertainty were calcu-
lated. The more widely apart the measurement temper-
atures are, within this temperature range, the less impact
an error in estimating the temperature will have in es-
timating the dimensions of the copper structure.
7.2. Thickness and area calculations
An estimate of the mean electrical thickness of a thin
copper ®lm can be obtained from measurements of the
sheet resistance made at two temperatures. The value for
the sheet resistance of a copper ®lm can be obtained
from measuring the resistance of a van der Pauw
structure [5] fabricated from the ®lm of interest and
multiplying that value by p= loge 2 to obtain the sheet
resistance.
Because the sheet resistance, RS , is the ratio of the
resistivity to the ®lm thickness, the mean electrical
thickness of a copper ®lm, t, is given by
  1
dq RS1 RS0
t ; …17†
dT T1 T0
where RS1 and RS0 are the resistances at temperatures T1
and T0 , respectively, and it is recognized that dq=dT is
very nearly constant over the temperature range. From
the theory of propagation of errors [15], the relative
uncertainty of the measurement of thickness, u…t†, is
given as follows, where the factor 2 takes into account
the errors made in the measurements of resistance at the
two temperatures and where q0 is dq=dT :
v
"
u
u 2 2 
u…t† t u…q † 0 u…T †
 ‡2
t q0 DT
An expression similar to Eq. (18) serves to estimate
the relative uncertainty in measuring the cross-sectional
area of a copper line because the measurement proce-
dure is the same. An estimate of the mean electrical
cross-section area of an interconnect line is obtained
from a four-terminal measurement of the resistance of a
247
line of known length, L, made at two temperatures. The
area, A, is given by
  1
dq R1 R0
AL : …19†
dT T1 T0
The relative uncertainty in the measurement of area is
di€erent from Eq. 18 only in the addition of the term
…u…L†=L†2 under the square root.
The analysis used to obtain the value of 0.0055 for
u…q0 †=q0 is described in Appendix A.2 of the Appendix A
(see also Section 5). Estimates for u…R†=DR were ob-
tained from the results of earlier within-laboratory
measurements to establish the repeatability of sheet re-
sistance and line resistance measurements of aluminum
alloy structures [16]. The analysis, discussed in detail in
Appendix A.2, revealed that the relative uncertainty for
the sheet and line resistances are 0.0023 and 0.0033,
respectively. Assuming an error of 0.5 lm in a line 250
lm long, the relative uncertainty contribution from L is
0.0020. Potentially the largest contributor to the uncer-
tainty, if care is not taken, is the measurement of tem-
perature. An error of 0.5°C was assumed for each
temperature measurement, 130°C apart. This led to a
relative uncertainty of 0.0038. The total relative uncer-
tainties for ®lm thickness and line cross-sectional area
are estimated to be 0.84% and 0.98%, respectively.
There are two additional sources for uncertainty.
One is a deviation from Matthiessen's rule of the me-
tallization being measured. As discussed in Section 2, an
uncertainty of no more than about 2 % is estimated. The
other is the high-resistivity shunt material used to encase
copper interconnects [17]. This layer is used to prevent
copper from di€using out from the interconnect, to
promote adhesion of the copper to the inter-layer di-
electric, or both. Generally, the thickness of this layer is
much smaller than the dimensions of the copper inter-
connect. Also, the resistivity of the layer material is apt
to be much greater than that of the copper. Both con-
ditions make it less critical to know exactly the ratio of
the thicknesses and resistivities in correcting for the
shunting e€ect in the resistance measurements involved
in the method [10].

2 # 8. Summary
u…R†
‡ : …18†
DR Values for the resistivity of pure, bulk copper from 50
to 1200 K were developed by extending and improving
on the analysis of Matula [2]. These values provide an
overall ®t to the experimental data that is superior to the
®t of Matula. The half-width of the 95% con®dence in-
terval for the ®t is less than 0.2% from 200 to 1200 K.
Below 200 K, the con®dence interval increases rapidly
to 14%.
248 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252

The method described here to measure copper ®lm where A ˆ 1:816013 lX cm, B ˆ 2:404851  10 3 , C ˆ
dimensions from resistance measurements at two tem- 4:560643  10 2 , D ˆ 5:976831  10 3 , h ˆ 310:8 K,
peratures assumes that Matthiessen's rule holds for p ˆ 1:838419, qR ˆ 1:803752  10 4 lX cm,
copper. It also requires a value for dq=dT for pure, bulk Z x
4 z5 ez
copper. Using the temperature dependence developed U…x† ˆ 5 dz;
for the resistivity of pure copper, the mean value rec- x 0 …ez 1†2
ommended for dq=dT between 290 and 425 K and is
and
0:006747  0:000037 lX cm K 1 , where one standard
deviation con®dence limits are provided. The relative h CT
xˆ :
uncertainty is 0.55%. T
Including estimated errors in the measurement of
resistance, length, and temperature led to total relative The left hand side of Eq. (A.1) is referred to as
uncertainties in the measurement of ®lm thickness and G2…T †NIST in Section 3.3.2. To simplify notation, q…T †
line cross-sectional of 0.84% and 0.98%, respectively. (or simply q) will be used for this quantity in the ap-
Data in the literature indicate that deviation from pendix. The derivative of q with respect to temperature
Matthiessen's rule for dilute alloys of copper may con- will be denoted here as q0 …T †, or q0 .In terms of x, Eq.
tribute an error of less than approximately 2% to the (A.1) can be written as
method. An error analysis of all these sources indicated q…T † ˆ qR ‡ A…1 ‡ B=x ‡ Dxp †U…x†:
that, in combination, the total relative uncertainty for
both ®lm thickness and line cross-sectional area are The parameters in Eq. (A.1) cannot be estimated si-
approximately the same and equal to 2.2%. Errors in the multaneously by least squares. This is an indication that
temperature measurements can be dicult to control this function is overparametrized. As a consequence, one
and can lead to a signi®cantly larger uncertainty than should not attempt to assign meaning to the values of
given here. the parameters because, with the exception of A and h
From the values of q and dq=dT for pure, bulk (the Debye temperature ®xed at Matula's value), these
copper, the maximum values for the temperature co- parameters have huge uncertainties. Many combinations
ecient of resistance at a given temperature can be of the parameters can lead to very nearly the same ®t.
calculated. At 0°C and at 25°C, they are 0:004368  However, the estimated resistivity and its derivative are
0:000049 lX cm °C 1 and 0:003936  0:000044 lX cm well determined, with reasonably small uncertainties.
°C 1 , respectively, where 95% con®dence limits are Denote the intrinsic resistivity data at temperature Tj by
provided. The introduction of impurities and imperfec- qj , for j ˆ 1; . . . ; n. The least squares estimates above
tions will reduce the TCR…T †. were obtained by ®tting log…q…T †† to the logarithm of
the intrinsic resistivity data. All of the parameters except
c and p were estimated ®rst, then these values were ®xed
Appendix A. Uncertainty analysis for q…T†, q0 …T†, and and c and p were allowed to vary. This process was re-
dimension estimates peated until convergence.
We now calculate the uncertainties in q…T †, q0 …T †.
A.1. Uncertainty in …T † and 0 …T † Denote standard uncertainties of a quantity q by u…q†.
De®ne the vectors of partial derivatives
Intrinsic resistivity as a function of temperature is h iT
approximately v1  oq…ToA
† oq…T †
oB
oq…T †
oC
oq…T †
oD
oq…T †
op
oq…T †
oqR

and
q…T † ˆ qR ‡ G2 …T †
  p    h iT
BT h CT h CT o2 q…T † o2 q…T † o2 q…T † o2 q…T † o2 q…T † o2 q…T †
ˆ qR ‡ A 1 ‡ ‡D U ; v2  oT oA oT oB oT oC oT oD oT op oT oqR
;
h CT T T
where the superscript ``T'' indicates a transpose. Let J be
…A:1† the Jacobian matrix for log‰q…T †Š, that is

2 o log‰q…T1 †Š o log‰q…T1 †Š o log‰q…T1 †Š o log‰q…T1 †Š o log‰q…T1 †Š o log‰q…T1 †Š

3
oA oB oC oD op oqR
6 o log‰q…T2 †Š o log‰q…T2 †Š o log‰q…T2 †Š o log‰q…T2 †Š o log‰q…T2 †Š o log‰q…T2 †Š 7
6 oA 7
6 oB oC oD op oqR 7
J ˆ6
6 ... .. .. .. .. .. 7
7
6 . . . . . 7
4 o log‰q…Tn †Š o log‰q…Tn †Š o log‰q…Tn †Š o log‰q…Tn †Š log‰q…Tn †Š log‰q…Tn †Š 5
oA oB oC oD op qR
 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252 249
2 1 oq…T1 † 1 oq…T1 † 1 oq…T1 † 1 oq…T1 † 1 oq…T1 † 1
3
q…T † oA q…T1 † oB q…T1 † oC q…T1 † oD q…T1 † op q…T1 †
6 11 oq…T2 † 1 oq…T2 † 1 oq…T2 † 1 oq…T2 † 1 oq…T2 † 1 7
6 q…T † oA 7
6 2 q…T2 † oB q…T2 † oC q…T2 † oD q…T2 † op q…T2 † 7
ˆ6
6 ... .. .. .. .. .. 7:
7
6 . . . . . 7
4 1 oq…Tn † 1 oq…Tn † 1 oq…Tn † 1 oq…Tn † 1 oq…Tn † 1 5
q…Tn † oA q…Tn † oB q…Tn † oC q…Tn † oD q…Tn † op q…Tn †

The estimated covariance matrix of the parameters is oq…T † oq…T † ox oq…T †

ˆ ˆ

1 oC ox" oC ox
W ˆ J T J s2 ;
4ex
ˆ A …1 ‡ B=x ‡ Dxp † ‡ D…p 5†xp 1
where s is the residual standard deviation …ex 1†2
s #
Pn  2

jˆ1 log…qj † log‰q…Tj †Š 2
5=x 6B=x U…u† ;
sˆ :
n 6
It follows from the propagation-of-errors approach oq…T †
ˆ Axp U…x†;
[18] for estimating the standard uncertainties of func- oD
tions of random variables that
q oq…T †
ˆ 1;
u‰q…T †Š  vT1 Wv1 oqR

and oq…T † oxp

  q ˆ AD U…x† ˆ AD log…x†U…x†xp ;
oq…T † op op
u  vT2 Wv2 :
oT
o2 q…T † oq…T † 1
In order to proceed further, we must evaluate the ˆ ;
oT oA oT A
partial derivatives in v1 , v2 , and J. We use the chain rule,
making use of the result o2 q…T † Ah 4ex 6Ah
" # ˆ 2 ‡ U…x†;
dU…x† 0 dx h 5U…x† 4ex oT oB T x …ex 1†2 T 2 x2
ˆ U …x† ˆ :
dT dT T 2 x …ex 1†2
o2 q…T † o2 q…T † ox o2 q…T †
The required partial derivatives are as follows: ˆ ˆ
oT oC oT(
ox oC oT ox
oq…T † Ah
4ex
ˆ A…1 ‡ B=x ‡ Dxp †U0 …x† ‡ A Dpxp 1 ˆ 2 Dpxp 1 B=x2 …1 ‡ B=x
ox
T …ex 1†2
B=x2 U…x† 4ex …ex ‡ 1†
" ‡ Dxp † ‡ D… p 5†xp 1
5=x
4ex …ex 1†3
ˆ A …1 ‡ B=x ‡ Dxp † ‡ D… p 5†x p 1
" #
…ex 1†2
4ex 5U…x†
# 6B=x 2
‡ 5=x2
2

…ex 1†2 x
5=x 6B=x U…x† ; )
3 p 2


‡ 12B=x ‡ D… p 5†… p 1†x U…x† ;
"
oq…T † Ah 4ex
ˆ 2 …1 ‡ B=x ‡ Dxp †
oT T …ex 1†2 o2 q…T † Ahxp 4ex Ahxp 1 … p 5†
# ˆ U…x†;

oT oD T 2 …ex 1†2 T2
p 1 2
‡ D… p 5†x 6B=x 5=x U…x† ;
o2 q…T † AhD log…x†xp 4ex
ˆ
oT op T 2
…ex 1†2
oq…T †
ˆ …1 ‡ B=x ‡ Dxp †U…x†; AhD… p 5† log…x†xp 1
oA U…x†:
T2
oq…T † AU…x† Con®dence intervals for q…T † and q0 …T †, for any
ˆ ;
oB x temperature T, are thus given by
250 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252
q
Table 3
q…T †  tn 6 …a† vT1 Wv1
Sheet resistance measurements …X†
and Tempera- Data set
q ture (°C) 1 2 3 4
q0 …T †  tn 6 …a† vT2 Wv2 ;
22.7 0.059004 0.058954 0.058981 0.058916
0.058956 0.058969 0.058973 0.058901
respectively. The constant multiplier tn 6 …a† is the 0.058949 0.058970 0.058989 0.058946
100…1 a=2† percentile of a student's t distribution with 0.058987 0.058949 0.059080 0.058902
n 6 degrees of freedom. For the data sets used 0.058980 0.058993 0.058975 0.058889
n 6 ˆ 61 6 ˆ 55. As is conventional, we choose 0.059014
a ˆ 0:05, resulting in 95% con®dence intervals.
65.9 0.067571 0.067548 0.067544 0.067518
0.067580 0.067521 0.067538 0.067514
A.2. Uncertainty in thickness and area 0.067580 0.067562 0.067556 0.067522
0.067584 0.067574 0.067524 0.067530
The thickness of a conductor can be estimated from 0.067621 0.067577 0.067569 0.067546
the ratio of q0 …T † to the derivative of the sheet resistance 106.6 0.075608 0.075600 0.075566 0.075582
with respect to temperature. In the previous section, we 0.075662 0.075602 0.075600 0.075571
have seen how to estimate q0 and u…q0 …T ††. To estimate 0.075718 0.075612 0.075580 0.075562
R0 …T †, the derivative of the sheet resistance, we propose 0.075666 0.075676 0.075563 0.075565
making resistance measurements at temperatures T0 and 0.075659 0.075645 0.075603 0.075600
T1 , chosen to be far enough apart so that a reliable es- 151.9 0.084816 0.084641 0.084539 0.084664
timate of slope can be obtained, but close enough to- 0.084803 0.084606 0.084642 0.084764
gether that one can assume resistance to be linear on the 0.084752 0.084596 0.084629 0.084615
interval ‰T0 ; T1 Š. Let the resistance measurements at these 0.084800 0.084637 0.084684 0.084673
temperatures be R0 and R1 , respectively, and estimate 0.084715 0.084571 0.084601 0.084849
thickness, t, as
  1
R1 R0
t  q0 …T † : q
T1 T0
u…R† ˆ r^2b ‡ r^2e ;
It is easy to show (again by propagation-of-errors [18])
that where r^2b and r^2e are the sample estimates of the vari-
v
 ances between sets (at the same temperature) and within
u  " 2  2 #
u…t† u u…q 0† 2 u…T † u…R† sets (at a ®xed temperature), respectively. The compo-
t ‡2 ‡ : nents of variance estimates
t q0 DT DR

r^2b ˆ …0:00003010†2 ;
Strictly speaking, of course, q0 and its uncertainty are
both functions of temperature. The range of a 95%
r^2e ˆ …0:00004938†2 ;
con®dence band on q0 …T † over the temperature range
of ‰293 425Š K is ‰0:006672 0:006821Š lX cm K 1 . We
take the midpoint of this interval, 0.006747 lX cm K 1 , were obtained using restricted maximum likelihood [19].
to be an estimate of q0 …T †, and the ratio of the half- The uncertainty, u…R†, is the square root of the sum of
width of this interval to the appropriate t-multiplier these variances, or
…0:00007450 lX cm K 1 =2:005 ˆ 0:00003716 lX cm K 1 † q
as an estimate of u…q0 …T ††. u…R† ˆ …0:00003010†2 ‡ …0:00004938†2
v
" ˆ 0:00005783 X:
u 2  2 #
u…t† u u…T † u…R†
6 t…0:0055† ‡ 2 2
‡ :
t DT DR For these data, we also have

DT ˆ …151:9 20:7†°C ˆ 131:2°C  130°C

An estimate of u…R† can be obtained from tests done
at NIST (Table 3). Data were obtained in four sets over
three days. Each set consists of ®ve or six measurements and
made over four temperatures, in the approximate range
of 22±150°C. The uncertainty u…R† is estimated as DR ˆ …0:084539 0:059080† X ˆ 0:025459 X;
 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252 251
v
"
where DR is the smallest di€erence in sheet resistances u 2  2 #  2
u…A† u u…T † u…R† u…L†
from the Table 3 data at these two temperatures. This 6 t…0:0055†2 ‡ 2 ‡ ‡
A DT DR L
leads to v

u " 2  2 #  2
v
" u u…T † 0:0447 u…L†
u 2  2 # t
 …0:0055† ‡ 2 2
‡ ‡
u…t† u t 2 u…T † u…R† DT 13:5905 L
6 …0:0055† ‡ 2 ‡ s
t DT DR  2  2
u…T † u…L†
v
 ˆ …0:0072†2 ‡ 2 ‡ : …A:3†
u " 2  2 # 130 L
u u…T † 0:00005783
 t…0:0055† ‡ 2 2
‡
DT 0:025459
s Assuming a temperature di€erence of 130°C, an un-
 2 certainty in temperature of 0:5°C, and a line length of
u…T †
ˆ …0:0064†2 ‡ 2 : …A:2† 250 lm with an associated uncertainty of 0:5 lm, the
130
relative uncertainty in cross-section area is approxi-
mately 0:98%. The corresponding calculation for sheet
The formula for determining the uncertainty in the
resistance gives a relative uncertainty in that thickness of
measurement of line area, A, from bridge resistance, Rb ,
0:84%.
measurements is essentially the same as for determining
®lm thickness. The only di€erence is the inclusion of an
uncertainty term for the length, L, of the bridge line. As
described in Section 2, the cross-sectional area of a References
conductor line can be estimated from the ratio of q0 …T †
to the change in bridge resistance with temperature, [1] Lin XW, Pramanik D. Future interconnect technologies
multiplied by the length of the bridge line. Similarly, and copper metallization. Solid State Technol 1998:63±79.
from the NIST data in Table 4, we have [2] Matula RA. Electrical resistivity of copper, gold, palla-
dium, and silver. J Phys Chem Ref Data 1979;8(4):1147±
u…Rb † ˆ 0:0447 X; DRb ˆ 13:5905 X; 298.
[3] Mott NF, Jones H. The theory of the properties of metals
and and alloys. New York: Dover Publications; 1958. p. 286±9.
[4] Scha€t HA, Suehle JS. The measurement, use and inter-
pretation of the temperature coecient of resistance of
metallization. Solid-State Electron 1992;35(3):403±10.
Table 4 [5] ASTM F 1261 ± 96: Standard test method for determining
Bridge resistance measurements …X† the average electrical width of a straight, thin-®lm metal
Tempera- Data set line, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 10.04 Elec-
ture ( C) 1 2 3 4 tronics.
[6] Bass J. Deviations from Matthiessen's rule. Adv Phys
22.7 31.7918 31.7798 31.7544 31.7312 1972;21:431±604.
31.7907 31.7791 31.7546 31.7324 [7] Bass J. Electrical resistivity of pure metals and dilute
31.7891 31.7792 31.7547 31.7332 alloys, 1-396, Group III in the new series of the Landolt±
31.7880 31.7792 31.7553 31.7346 Bornstein tables for crystal and solid state physics, vol. III/
31.7867 31.7792 31.7553 31.7357 15, Berlin: Springer; 1982.
31.7793 [8] Dugdale JS, Basinski ZS. Matthiessen's rule and aniso-
65.9 36.4105 36.3306 36.3251 36.3095 tropic relaxation times. Phys Rev 1967;157(3):157±60.
36.4030 36.3297 36.3248 36.3102 [9] Singer P. Wafer processing: AMD develops electroplated
36.4070 36.3305 36.3232 36.3124 copper Damascene process. Semicond Int 1997:40.
36.4109 36.3340 36.3259 36.3156 [10] Scha€t HA, Mayo S, Jones SN, Suehle JS. An electrical
36.4096 36.3395 36.3306 36.3167 method for determining the thickness of metal ®lms and
the cross-sectional area of metal lines, 5±11, Final report:
106.6 40.6942 40.6119 40.5897 40.5887 1994 Internat'l. Integrated Reliability Workshop, IEEE
40.7005 40.6150 40.5916 40.5875 Catalogue no. 94TH0654-4.
40.7000 40.6179 40.5951 40.5950 [11] Ho CY, Ackerman MW, Wu KY, Havill TN, Bogaard
40.7027 40.6195 40.5939 40.6030 RH, Matula RA, Oh SG, James HM. Electrical resistivity
40.7040 40.6248 40.5949 40.6065 of ten selected binary alloy systems. J Phys Chem Ref Data
1983;12(2):183±322.
151.9 45.5126 45.3823 45.3939 45.4012
[12] Dobrosavljevic AS, Maglic KD. Heat capacity and electric
45.5156 45.3896 45.3996 45.4092
resistivity of copper research material for calorimetry. 12th
45.5131 45.4002 45.4030 45.4124
ETPC Proc; High Temp High Press 1991;23:129±133.
45.5207 45.4054 45.4085 45.4149
[13] Meaden GT. Electrical resistance of metals. New York:
45.5187 45.4011 45.4102 45.4236
Plenum Press; 1965. p. 218.
252 C.E. Schuster et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 41 (2001) 239±252
[14] Touloukian YS, Kirby RK, Taylor RE, Desai PD.
Thermal expansion metallic elements and alloys. Thermo-
physical properties of matter, vol. 12, The TPRC Data
Series, 1975.
[15] Ku HH. Notes on the use of propagation of error
formulas. J Res National Bureau Standards ± C. Engng
Instrum 1966;70C (4).
[16] Scha€t HA, Suehle JS, Albers J. JEDEC ``TCR'' Interlab-
oratory Experiment ± Lessons Learned, 12±19, Final
Report: 1994 Internat'l. Integrated Reliability Workshop,
IEEE Catalogue No. 94TH0654-4.
[17] Ryu C, Lee H, Kwon K-W, Loke ALS, Wong SS. Barriers
for copper interconnections. Solid State Technol 1999:53.
[18] Bevington PR, Robinson DK. Data reduction and error
analysis for the physical sciences. 2nd ed. New York:
McGraw Hill; 1992. p. 41±60.
[19] Searle SR, Casella G, McCulloch CE. Variance compo-
nents. New York: Wiley; 1992.