Finite Element and Analytical Solutions for Van der Pauw and Four-Point Probe

Correction Factors when Multiple Non-Ideal Measurement Conditions Coexist

Mardochee Reveil,1 Victoria C. Sorg,1 Emily R. Cheng,1 Taha Ezzyat,1 Paulette Clancy,1
and Michael O. Thompson2, a)
1)
Robert F. Smith School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering,
Cornell University, NY 14853, U.S.A.
2)
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Cornell University, NY 14853,
U.S.A.

This paper presents an extensive collection of calculated correction factors that ac-
count for the combined effects of a wide range of non-ideal conditions often encoun-
tered in realistic four-point probe and Van der Pauw experiments. In this context,
“non-ideal conditions” refer to conditions that deviate from the assumptions on sam-
ple and probe characteristics made in the development of these two techniques. We
examine the combined effects of contact size and sample thickness on van der Pauw
measurements. In the four-point probe configuration, we examine the combined ef-
fects of varying the sample’s lateral dimensions, probe placement, and sample thick-
ness. We derive an analytical expression to calculate correction factors that accounts,
simultaneously, for finite sample size and asymmetric probe placement in four-point
probe experiments. We provide experimental validation of the analytical solution
via four-point probe measurements on a thin film rectangular sample with arbitrary
probe placement. The finite sample size effect is very significant in four-point probe
measurements (especially for a narrow sample) and asymmetric probe placement
only worsens such effects. The contribution of conduction in multilayer samples is
also studied and found to be substantial; hence, we provide a map of the necessary
corrections factors. This library of correction factors will enable the design of resis-
tivity measurements with improved accuracy and reproducibility over a wide range
of experimental conditions.

Keywords: Van der Pauw, Four-Point Probe, Resistivity Measurements, Correction

Factors, Finite Element Analysis.

a)
Electronic mail: mot1@cornell.edu

1
I. INTRODUCTION

Electrical characterization of complex 3D samples is increasingly needed for a wide range

of applications. In this regime, some of the approximations used in Van der Pauw and
four-point probe techniques fail, resulting in non-ideal measurement conditions. Moreover,
as advances in the semiconductor industry continue to shrink the size of device features,
there is a growing need for experimental thin-film characterization at scales and geometries
where multiple non-ideal conditions may exist. However, the adaptation of bulk electri-
cal measurement techniques to the study of nanoscale features is challenging, and requires
an understanding of the interplay between contact size and sample thickness, as well as
micro- and nanoscale inhomogeneities in electrical properties. Additionally, the increasing
complexity in device architectures can complicate interpretation of measurement results.
Within this context, this work attempts to characterize the efficacy of two such measure-
ment techniques under non-ideal conditions, namely, the Van der Pauw and linear four-point
probe techniques.

The Van der Pauw technique, first published in 1958,1 is a non-destructive method used
to perform direct thin-film sheet resistivity measurements. This method can be used to
characterize any arbitrarily shaped samples and has been extended over the years to perform
other types of experimental characterization such as thermal resistivity measurements.2–6
In this work, we focus only on electrical measurements using a Van der Pauw set-up as
represented schematically in Fig. 1a on a square sample. For a complete description of the
derivation of this method and how it applies to samples of arbitrary shapes, the reader is
referred to Van der Pauw1 . Despite all its advantages, the VdP technique relies on very
stringent experimental conditions such as infinitely thin (2D) sample and infinitely small
contacts placed on the periphery of the sample, which are often impossible to achieve in
practice. This creates a need for correction factors that account for deviations from these
ideal conditions.

The four-point probe technique is similar to the Van der Pauw method in the sense that
they both use four probes and can measure electrical resistivity while minimizing the effect
of parasitic resistance. However, the underlying assumptions and derivation of those two
methods are different. The Van der Pauw technique was developed based on the method
of conformal mapping and allows for Hall effect characterization as well as resistivity mea-

2
surements to be performed in just one experiment with the application of a magnetic field.1
Another key difference between the two methods is based on the use of (usually linear
and uniformly placed) probes ideally at the center of the sample in the case of four-point
probe, as shown in Fig. 1b, whereas the probes are placed in arbitrary locations on the
periphery of the sample in the Van der Pauw method. In addition, the ideal four-point
probe geometry requires samples to have an infinite lateral dimension whereas this is not
a requirement for Van der Pauw measurements. For more details on the derivation of the
four-point probe method, the reader is referred to the original paper published in 1954 by
L. B. Valdes where he describes the four-point probe technique as applied to resistivity
measurements in semiconductors.7 Deviations from ideal conditions in the case of four-point
probe measurements also require the use of correction factors.
Over the years, several authors have derived correction factors to address non-ideal con-
ditions in both Van der Pauw and four-point probe measurements.1,8–10 However, as char-
acteristic device sizes shrink, or as samples become three-dimensional in nature, multiple
non-idealities may be present, rendering most existing correction factors inaccurate. In this
study, we present a comprehensive evaluation of, and provide practical considerations for,
conducting Van der Pauw and linear four-point probe measurements in situations where
multiple non-ideal conditions are present.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Van der Pauw and Four-Point Probe Techniques

As shown in Fig. 1a, a Van der Pauw experiment places four-point contacts (A, B, C, and
D) on the periphery of a thin-film sample. For illustration purposes, a sample of side length
L and thickness t is used, although samples of any arbitrary shape and size can be used.
The voltage drop between two contacts is measured, while a constant current is maintained
through the other two contacts. Measuring R1 and R2 on different configurations allows
the experimental sheet resistance Rs,exp to be determined using Equation 1. We remind the
reader that the different assumptions made in the Van der Pauw technique are as follow:
(1) sample is infinitely thin (2D shape) (2) contacts are placed on the circumference of
the sample (3) contacts are infinitely small (point contacts) (4) sample is homogeneous

3
in thickness (5) sample does not contain holes. While applicable to a random geometry,
symmetric forms are normally used with contacts placed on the corners or edges. In such
cases, R1 and R2 are the same and Equation 1 reduces to Equation 2.
A schematic of the set-up for a four-point probe experiment is presented in Fig. 1b.
In the most common configuration, linear probes that are uniformly spaced by a distance,
s, are configured such that current passes through the outer probes, while the potential
is measured between the inner probes. We define the probe placement normalized to the
sample’s length L and width W, respectively, fl and fw , to indicate how far from the center
the probes are placed on the sample with fl = fw = 0.5 corresponding to the symmetric
case. The sheet resistance for an ideal four-point probe set-up (with an infinitely thin 2D
sample) is given by Equation 2. The resistivity ρexp is simply Rs,exp ∗ t, where t is the sample
thickness. Complete derivations, as well as the underlying assumptions for those equations,
are given by Van der Pauw1 and Valdes7 .

πR1 πR2
exp(− ) + exp(− )=1 (1)
Rs,exp Rs,exp

π V
Rs,exp = (2)
ln(2) I

B. Correction Factors

The experimental sheet resistance, Rs,exp , is equal to the true sample sheet resistance if all
of the ideal conditions and assumptions are fully satisfied. In reality, one or more non-ideal
conditions are usually present. In such cases, experimental sheet resistance, Rs,exp , differs
from the true sample resistivity, Rs , by a factor which depends on the specific sample geom-
etry. We define a correction factor, fcorr , as the value by which Rs,exp is multiplied to obtain
Rs (Equation 3). Hence, a correction factor greater than 1 means that the experimentally
measured sample resistivity is under-predicted.

Rs = fcorr ∗ Rs,exp (3)

A non-exhaustive list of possible non-ideal conditions for Van der Pauw measurements
is presented in Table I. As mentioned before, some correction factors have previously been
computed in literature. For example, Chwang et al.8 have computed correction factors for

4
finite contact size in Van der Pauw measurements, whereas Kasl et al.9 calculated correction
factors for the effect of finite thickness. Baojia et al.11 looked at the effects of placing contacts
away from the periphery of the sample, while Matsumura12 studied inhomogeneous samples.
In the present work, we complement those previous studies by looking at the effects of both
finite contact size and sample thickness on the accuracy on VdP measurements.
Similarly, in Table II, we present a list of non-ideal sample geometries and conditions for
the four-point probe technique. Previous work on the subject include Liu13 and Smits14 who
have studied the effect of finite thickness (in the < 40 nm regime) and finite sample size,
respectively, on four-point probe measurements. Valdes7 and Uhlir15 have also published
in-depth discussions on four-point probe correction factors for different non-ideal geometries
and conditions including the effect of sample size, thickness and conductive faces. For a
comprehensive review of existing correction factors for the four-point probe method, the
reader is referred to Miccoli et al.16 . Our work complements and completes those previous
results in a few significant ways. Firstly, in both Uhlir and Valdes’s treatment, the sam-
ple is always infinite in at least one dimension (except in the case of square filament with
symmetric probe placement in Uhlir’s paper). Our studies focus on samples that are finite
in all dimensions. Moreover, in Valdes and Uhlir’s discussion on the effects of conducting
substrates, only the thickness of the measured layer is varied. The thickness of the con-
ducting substrate is assumed to be very small (essentially corresponding to a 2D surface)
and its resistivity is either infinitely large (insulator) or negligible. In our case, both the
thickness and the conductivity of the substrate are varied to better understand their effects
on measured resistivity.

TABLE I: Non-ideal conditions in Van der Pauw measurements and related studies.

Non-ideal conditions Reference(s)

Finite contact size Chwang et al.8

Contacts not on periphery Baojia et al., Koon et al.10,11
Finite thickness Kasl et al.9
Inhomogeneous sample Matsumura et al.12
Finite thickness and finite contact size This work

5
 TABLE II: Non-ideal conditions in four-point probes measurements and related studies.

Sample description (primary non-ideal conditions) Reference(s)

Infinite slice (thickness) Valdes7 , Uhlir15 , Smits14

Infinite slice with conducting bottom (thickness) Valdes7 and Uhlir15
Semi-infinite slice with probes parallel to edge (thickness) Valdes7 and Uhlir15
Semi-infinite slice with probes perpendicular to edge (thickness) Valdes7 and Uhlir15
Quarter-infinite slice (finite thickness) Uhlir15
Square filament with symmetric probe placement (sample size and Uhlir15
thickness)
2D rectangular sample with symmetric probe placement (sample size) Smits14
2D circular sample with symmetric probe placement (sample size) Smits14
2D rectangular sample with asymmetric probe placement (sample size This work
and probe placement)
Rectangular slice with symmetric probe placement (sample size and This work
thickness)
Square slice on infinite substrate with finite conductivity and thickness This work
(substrate thickness and conductivity)

In the present paper, correction factors are calculated for situations where multiple non-
ideal conditions coexist and plotted as a function of two appropriately normalized non-ideal
conditions. The proper normalization for the contact size in Van der Pauw measurements
is the square root of the sample’s top surface area. For a square sample, this is equivalent
to using the length of the sides. The probe spacing, s, is a normalization constant in a
four-point probe.

C. Numerical Methods

While analytical solutions exist for several of these non-idealities, numerical methods
must be used to solve cases involving more complex geometries. In this paper, we use a
Finite Element Method (FEM) (implemented in COMSOL
R
Multiphysics)17 to solve for

6
the three-dimensional distribution of the electrical potential within the sample. FEM has
been successfully used in the past to solve for the electrical potential distribution during
Van der Pauw measurements with contacts placed away from the periphery.11 We assume
isotropic conductivity and solve Equations 4, 5, and 6, where J is the current density in
A/m2 , E the electric field in V /m , σ the electrical conductivity in S/m and V the potential
in V .

∇· J = 0 (4)

J = σE (5)

E = −∇V (6)

For both the Van der Pauw and four-point probe method, cuboids are created in COM-
SOL according to Fig. 1a. Electrical contacts are created using a 2D square surface at
each corner. Correction factors are determined as a function of thickness of the sample as
well as the size of the contacts. For the four-point probe method, rectangular monolayer or
bilayer samples are created, but, unlike in the Van der Pauw method, the contacts for the
four-point probes are simulated using circular surfaces (to represent points) of radius at least
50 times smaller than the probe separation distance, s. Correction factors for the four-point
probe method applied to monolayer samples are computed as a function of sample size and
thickness as well as probe placement. In the case of bilayer samples, correction factors are
computed as a function of conductivity and thickness of the substrate. For both the Van
der Pauw and four-point probe methods, one of the contacts is grounded while another one
is used as current source. The voltage is measured on the other two contacts while all other
surfaces remain insulated.
To ensure the correctness of our methodology, sample data published by NIST18 were
used for the electric current as well as the ”true” sheet resistance of the samples. As per
those data, a value of 4.103 ∗ 108 Ω/square was used for the sheet resistance Rs and a
current of 1.005 nA was applied between the two outer probes in the case of four-point
probe or any two consecutive probes in the case of VdP. The 3D FEM solution for the
electric field distribution was then computed using COMSOL. After proper convergence of

7
the solution, the ratio of the voltage (calculated between the remaining two probes) and
the current was calculated as RA . In the case of VdP, the probes used for current and
voltage were then interchanged to calculate RB . The experimental sheet resistance Rs,exp
was subsequently calculated using Equation 1. For the four-point probe, equation 2 was
used directly with RA to calculate Rs,exp . We verified that Rs,exp was equal to the true
sheet resistance (Rs = 4.103 ∗ 108 Ω/square) when the ideal conditions were met and that
Rs,exp differed, sometimes significantly, from Rs , otherwise. With both the true resistance
Rs and the measured resistance Rs,exp known, as per Equation 3, the correction factor was
computed as the ratio of those two values. This process was repeated for all the different
cases of interest in this study leading to the correction factors reported here.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Combined effect of sample thickness and contact size on Van der Pauw

Figure 2 shows correction factors for Van der Pauw resistivity measurements under non-
ideal conditions. For a 2D sample, as previously reported in literature8,10 , the measured
sheet resistance decreases as the contact size increases. In such scenarios, Van der Pauw
measurements will underpredict the “true” resistivity and a correction factor greater than
1 will be required. For example, for a 2D sample, when the contact size is 25% of the side
length of the sample, the measured resistivity is roughly 13% lower than the true resistivity.
This is identical to previous calculations by Chwang et al.8 . On the other hand, increasing
sample thickness has the opposite effect, with the measured resistivity becoming larger than
the true resistivity and hence requiring a correction factor less than 1.
Figure 2 presents our new results accounting concurrently for both sample thickness, t,
and contact size. The reader is reminded that the normalization constant for the contact
size in Van der Pauw measurements is the square root of the sample’s top surface area
(which corresponds to a side length, L, in the case of a square sample). The contours are
lines of constant correction factor. Based on these results, sample thickness starts to have a
significant effect on the accuracy of Van der Pauw measurements only when the aspect ratio
(t/L) is greater than 50%. Below an aspect ratio of 50%, errors are only on the order of
3% for small contact sizes. Moreover, for sufficiently thin samples, contact size can increase

8
to 16% of the square sample size with virtually no effect on the accuracy of the technique.
Above 16%, contact size starts to induce an increasingly large finite error. In some regimes,
this error may be fully compensated by the opposite effect of increasing thickness. For
example, the error made when the size is 20% is fully compensated by the opposite error
due to a sample thickness of 40%. Such an error would be around 13% if the sample was
infinitely thin. The use of a correction factor that only takes into account finite contact size
in such a scenario would lead to the wrong resistivity value. This underscores the importance
of employing the data in Fig. 2 to determine the appropriate value of the correction factor
for Van der Pauw measurements when multiple non-ideal conditions are present.

B. Combined effect of finite sample size and asymmetric probe placement on

the four-point probe.

As mentioned earlier, the ideal four-point probe sample is a 2D sample with infinitely
large lateral dimensions and infinitely small thickness. In this section, we explore the effects
of finite sample size and compute relevant correction factors. The probe spacing, s, provides
a natural scaling coordinate for all distances. Consequently, we define scaled coordinates,
x and y, from physical coordinates (X, Y ) as x = X/s and y = Y /s and scaled sample
dimensions as w = W/s and l = L/s. An analytical solution can be obtained using the
method of images for samples of finite length and width, as given by Equation 7 below. The
parameters fl and fw account for asymmetric placement of the probes on the sample with
fw = fl = 0.5 corresponding to probes at the center of the sample. A detailed derivation
of Equation 7 is given in the Appendix. At the limit of infinite length and width, and for
symmetric placement of the probes, the familiar expression given by Equation 2 is recov-
ered. Equation 7 and Smits’s analytical solution can be used interchangeably in the case of
symmetric probe placement14 .

9
 ( ∞ ∞ 
X X (2ml + 2)2 + (2nw)2 (2ml − 2)2 + (2nw)2
fc = 4 ln 2 × ln + ln +
m=−∞ n=−∞
(2ml + 1)2 + (2nw)2 (2ml − 1)2 + (2nw)2

(2ml + 2fl l + 1)2 + (2nw)2

ln +
(2ml + 2fl l + 2)2 + (2nw)2

(2ml + 2fl l − 1)2 + (2nw)2

ln +
(2ml + 2fl l − 2)2 + (2nw)2

(2ml + 2)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2

ln +
(2ml + 1)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2

(2ml − 2)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2

ln +
(2ml − 1)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2

(2ml + 2fl l + 1)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2

ln +
(2ml + 2fl l + 2)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2
−1
(2ml + 2fl l − 1)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2
ln (7)
(2ml + 2fl l − 2)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2

Figure 3 shows a graphical representation of Equation 7 for the symmetric case. As

expected, the correction factor is 1.0 when the dimensions of the sample approach infinity.
The infinite sample size holds true as long as the normalized lateral dimensions remain above
a value of approximately 25. Experimental measurements usually take place in the regime
below a normalized size of 25 and should therefore be corrected by the appropriate factor.
In the limit of small length values, more specifically below a normalized length of 5, further
reducing the length of the sample has a dramatic effect on the accuracy of the four-point
probe method. For example, a normalized length of 3 induces a 40% error, independent of
the normalized width. However, in the limit of large sample size, more specifically, above
a normalized length and width of 5, both width and length have relatively the same effect.
The contour lines of constant error are parallel to one axis for any fixed value of the other.
To further validate the analytical result, for asymmetric probe placement, Fig. 4 (a -
f) presents plots of the correction factor given by Equation 7 and corresponding numerical
calculations for different sample sizes. Excellent agreement is observed between analytical
and numerical results. Moreover, Fig. 5 (a and b) shows a comparison with experimental
data for asymmetric probe placement. Good agreement is observed, with slight discrepan-
cies attributed to size effects of the sample. The reader is reminded that these plots show

10
validation data for only a few limited cases of Eq. 7 to confirm its validity. The equation
obtained through analytical derivation remains applicable for combined effects of both asym-
metric probe placement and finite sample size, since we see very good agreement between
the analytical, numerical and experimental results in these validation tests.
As expected, and as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, in all cases, fw has a larger effect than
fl in the limit of fw → 0 because fw approaches zero, the current is forced to go through
a smaller channel leading to a higher apparent resistivity. On the other hand, when the
probes are placed sufficiently close to the center, any asymmetric effects become negligible
and only finite lateral size effects matter. Based on these results, far enough from the
center, additional correction factors have to be applied to any four-point probe resistivity
measurement. The effect becomes even more significant if the probes are not placed at the
center when measuring a sample of finite size. Predictably, the smaller the sample, the
more pronounced the effect of asymmetric probe placement. For example, the accuracy of
a measurement can become as low as 30% if the probes are placed at fw = 0.25 (half-way
to the center) on a sample with a normalized lateral dimension of 5.

C. Combined effect of finite sample size and thickness on a four-point probe.

Figures 6a and 6b give correction factors for four-point probe measurements as a function
of normalized sample size and thickness for square samples. As expected, and as discussed
in the previous section, resistivity is over-predicted as the sample size approaches the probe
spacing. However, deviations from the 2D limit enhance this effect and errors of as much as
40% can result when the thickness is just twice the probe spacing even with infinite lateral
dimensions. Based on these results, we can summarize a few “rules of thumb” for best
practices during four-point probe measurements:

1. It is preferable to have a sample size at least eight times greater than the probe
spacing. Below a normalized lateral size of 8, the error increases significantly even if
the thickness approaches zero.

2. The thickness should preferably be less than the probe spacing. Beyond a normalized
thickness of 1, the accuracy of the four-point probe method also drops significantly.
For example, once the normalized thickness is more than 3, the accuracy is less than

11
 50% even for infinite lateral dimensions.

These rules of thumb only ensure that errors are on the order of 10%. A correction factor
is still needed whenever the normalized sample size is less than 15 and/or the normalized
sample thickness is more than 0.25.

D. Non-Ideal Conductive Substrates.

Normally, thin conducting films are grown on insulating substrates where the conduction
of the substrate can be ignored. However, for high resistivity films on substrates with finite
conductivity, the current is shared between the film and the substrate. In order to study
the influence of the presence of an additional layer, we use an otherwise ideal square sample
with small thickness and small contact size. We vary both the resistivity and thickness of
the substrate to probe the influence on the accuracy of the thin film resistance estimates.
This is repeated for a substrate size corresponding to experimentally etched samples. An
example of such samples is given in Figs. 7a and 7b.

In Figure 8, the correction factor for Van der Pauw measurements is plotted as a function
of both substrate and film conductivity normalized by their respective thicknesses. The
lateral dimension of the substrate is the same as the film (Fig. 8a) and five times the lateral
dimension of the film (Fig. 8b). The ideal bilayer sample would have a substrate of very low
conductivity (very resistive) compared to the film. In this scenario, substrate thickness would
be irrelevant as all the current would flow through the film. As the substrate becomes more
conductive than the film, substrate thickness will start to increasingly influence the measured
resistance. Larger substrate thickness will cause the measured resistivity to be lower than
the true resistivity leading to correction factors greater than 1. The contour lines in Fig. 8
illustrate such behavior, showing that the error increases with both substrate conductivity
and thickness. In the limit of small normalized substrate thicknesses (below 0.1), conductive
substrates will have limited effect on the accuracy of Van der Pauw measurements. Increasing
the substrate lateral size relative to the film will only enhance the behavior described above
and lead to even higher error values, as shown on the plot on the right. Similar behavior is
expected for four-point probe measurements.

12
IV. SUMMARY

We have evaluated the influence of non-ideal conditions on the accuracy of Van der Pauw
and four-point probe techniques. We showed that correction factors for Van der Pauw mea-
surements must include both the influence of finite contact size and sample thickness for
accurate results. Similarly, in four-point probes measurements, infinitely large samples can
still lead to erroneous results if the thickness is not taken into account. In addition, an ana-
lytical solution has been derived and validated with numerical and experimental data for the
effect of both finite lateral dimensions and asymmetric probe placements in four-point probe
measurements of rectangular samples. Finally, we show that, in bilayer samples, proper tun-
ing of the substrate resistivity and thickness can lead to electrical characterization within
acceptable error. We hope these studies will provide practical guidelines for semiconductor
thin-film resistivity measurements in increasingly common, non-ideal conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Mardochee Reveil thanks Intel Corporation for generous funding through the GEM Fel-
lowship and the Colman family for generous financial support through the Colman Fellow-
ship at Cornell. Victoria C. Sorg acknowledges support, in part, through an Intel Foun-
dation/Semiconductor Research Corporation Education Alliance (SRCEA) Graduate Re-
search Fellowship and through a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow-
ship (NSF GRFP) under Grant No. DGE-1144153. Emily R. Cheng acknowledges sup-
port through Cornell’s Engineering Learning Initiatives Undergraduate Research Program,
funded through SRCEA. This work benefited from computing resources provided by the
Cornell Institute of Computational Science and Engineering (ICSE).

Appendix A: Derivation of the Analytical Solution for Finite Size and

Asymmetric Probe Placement in Rectangular Four-Point Probe Samples

The probe spacing, s, provides a natural scaling coordinate for all distances. Conse-
quently, we define scaled coordinates x and y from physical coordinates (X, Y ) as x = X/s
and y = Y /s and scaled sample dimensions as w = W/s and l = L/s. The origin is taken to
be the center of the probe set with point-contact probes at coordinates (−3/2, 0), (−1/2, 0),

13
(1/2) and (3/2, 0).

1. Field from a single current source

Consider a current of magnitude, I, injected at the origin (of an arbitrary coordinate

system) into an infinite sheet with resistivity, ρ (isotropic), and thickness, t. The return
current path is at r = ∞ and the thickness, t, is assumed to be negligible. In a polar
coordinate system, the current density J is then radially symmetric and the electric field E
can be obtained via Ohm’s law where ρ is the resistivity as
I
J~ = r̂
2π r t
~ = ρJ~ = ρI r̂
E
2π r t
At a Cartesian coordinate (x, y), the polar transformation to (r, θ) requires

r̂ = cos θ x̂ + sin θ ŷ
y
θ = tan1
x
x
cos θ = p
x2 + y 2
y
sin θ = p
x2 + y 2
! !
x y
r̂ = p x̂ + p ŷ
x2 + y 2 x2 + y 2
Re-expressing the electric field in Cartesian coordinates gives
~ = ρ I r̂
E
2π r t !
ρI 1 x y
= p p x̂ + p ŷ
2π t x2 + y 2 x2 + y 2 x2 + y 2
 
ρI x y
= x̂ + 2 ŷ
2π t x2 + y 2 x + y2
For a current injection at any other coordinate (x0 , y0 ), the electric field is
 
~ = ρ I (x − x 0 ) (y − y0 )
E x̂ + ŷ
2π t (x − x0 )2 + (y − y0 )2 (x − x0 )2 + (y − y0 )2
~ = −∇V ), the total potential difference
As the electric field is the gradient of the potential (E
between the two sense probes of the 4-pt probe is given by the integral
Z 1/2 Z 1/2
ρI (x − x0 )
V =− Ex dx = − dx
−1/2 2π t −1/2 (x − x0 )2 + y02

14
 Using linear superposition, the voltage for a collection of current source is just the sum
of the integrals. Consider a positive current injected at (+3/2, 0) and returning from the
contact at (−3/2, 0), the potential is then
"Z #
1/2
x − 32 x + 32
Z 1/2
ρI
V =−
dx −
dx
2π t 3 2 3 2
−1/2 x − −1/2 x +
2 2
Z 1 Z 2 
ρI u u
=− 2
du − 2
du
2π t −2 u 1 u
 
ρI 1
=− ln − ln 2
2π t 2
 ρ   ln 2 
= I
t π

which gives the sheet resistivity for an infinite sample as the familiar

ρ  π  V
= ρs =
t ln 2 I

2. Superposition for a sample of finite width

For a sample of width, w, with the 4-pt probes placed at the center, the finite sample
can be extended to infinity by mirroring the sample in the y direction. This implies an infinite
number of +I current sources at . . . , (+3/2, −2w), (+3/2, −w), (+3/2, 0), (+3/2, w), (+3/2, 2w), . . .
and a similar set of −I sources at the x = −3/2 position. The potential is now just given
by the infinite sum over all of these sources
∞
"Z #
1/2
x − 23 x + 23
Z 1/2
ρI X
V =− dx − dx
2π t n=−∞ −1/2 x − 3 2 + (nw)2 3 2



−1/2 x + + (nw)2
2 2
∞ Z −1 Z 2 
ρI X u u
=− 2 2
du − 2 2
du
2π t n=−∞ −2 u + (nw) 1 u + (nw)
∞ Z 2 Z −1 
ρI X u u
= du − du
2π t n=−∞ 1 u2 + (nw)2 2
−2 u + (nw)
2

∞ Z 4 Z 4 
ρI X 1 1
= dv + dv
4π t n=−∞ 1 v + (nw)2 1 v + (nw)
2

∞ Z 4
ρI X 1
= dx
2π t n=−∞ 1 x + (nw)2
∞
4 + (nw)2
 
ρI X
= ln
2π t n=−∞ 1 + (nw)2

15
where we used the substitutions of u = (x − 3/2) and v = u2 . The final result is remarkably
simple and can be quickly verified to give the correct limit as w → ∞.
This can be written in terms of the correction factor, fc , as

ρ  π  V 
ρs = = fc
t ln 2 I
2 ln 2
fc = ∞
4 + (nw)2
X  
ln
n=−∞
1 + (nw)2

The requirement that the probes be placed in the center of the sample width can easily be
relaxed by recognizing the symmetry can be achieved by pairing the mirror sources. Let the
four-point probes be placed a distance, f , from one edge of the sample and 1 − f from the
other edge (f = 0.5 being the symmetric condition). In addition to current sources at y = 0,
mirror current sources, in the positive direction, must be at y = 2f w, y = 2w, y = 2w +2f w,
y = 4w, . . . with similar sources in the negative direction at y = −2w + 2f w, y = −2w,
y = −4w + 2f w, y = −4w, . . . . In the limit of f = 0.5, this reproduces a symmetric set of
sources and, in the limit f → 0 or f → 1, it reduces to a 2I current source with a sample
width of 2w, as expected.
These source coordinates can be written more succinctly as pairs of sources at y0 = 2nw
and y0 = (2n + 2f )w for all n. The integral over the +I and −I source now just become
four integrals
∞
"Z
1/2
x − 32 x + 32
Z 1/2
ρI X
V =− dx − dx +
2π t n=−∞ −1/2 x − 3 2 + (2nw)2 3 2



−1/2 x + + (2nw) 2
2 2
#
3
x + 23
Z 1/2 Z 1/2
x− 2
dx − dx
3 2 3 2



−1/2 x −
2
+ (2nw + 2f w)2 −1/2 x +
2
+ (2nw + 2f w)2
∞ Z 4 Z 4 
ρI X 1 1
= dx + dx
2π t n=−∞ 1 x + (2nw)2 1 x + (2nw + 2f w)
2

∞  
4 + (2nw)2 4 + (2nw + 2f )2
  
ρI X
= ln + ln
2π t n=−∞ 1 + (2nw)2 1 + (2nw + 2f w)2

and the equivalent correction factor can be written as

2 ln 2
fc = ∞   2
4 + (2nw + 2f w)2
  
X 4 + (2nw)
ln 2
+ ln
n=−∞
1 + (2nw) 1 + (2nw + 2f w)2

16
3. Finite length samples

The extension to a finite length sample is straightforward, although perhaps mathemat-

ically inelegant. We consider just a set of the sources mirrored in x. We have the primary
negative source at x = −3/2 and positive source at x = +3/2. For symmetrically placed
probes along the length, we need a matching positive mirror source at l − 3/2 in the positive
direction and at l + 3/2 as the negative source. The next mirror source must reverse again
with a negative source at 2l − 3/2 and a positive source at 2l + 3/2.
It is simpler to consider a repeat block consisting of four current sources that is mirrored
with a 2l distance. Limiting ourselves initially to an infinitely wide case (the extension being
obvious), we have an explicit set of sources at
+I (+3/2, 0) −I (−3/2, 0)
+I (l − 3/2, 0) −I (l + 3/2, 0)
which can be replicated for all −∞ < m < ∞ as
+I (2ml + 3/2, 0) −I (2ml − 3/2, 0)
+I (2ml + 1 − 3/2, 0) −I (2ml + l + 3/2, 0)
It is easy at this point to take the asymmetric probes placement into account with the factor
f (f = 0.5 being symmetric). The current sources are then
+I (2ml + 3/2, 0) −I (2ml − 3/2, 0)
+I (2ml + 2f l − 3/2, 0) −I (2ml + 2f l + 3/2, 0)
Changing limits on the additional integrals gives
∞
"Z
1/2
x − 2ml − 23 x − 2ml + 32
Z 1/2
ρI X
V =− dx −
dx +
2π t m=−∞ −1/2 x − 2ml − 3 2 3 2


−1/2 x − 2ml +
2 2
#
3
x − 2ml − 2f l − 32
Z 1/2 Z 1/2
x − 2ml − 2f l + 2

dx −
3 2

dx
3 2
−1/2 x − 2ml − 2f l + −1/2 x − 2ml − 2f l −
2 2
∞ Z −2ml−1 Z −2ml+2 Z −2ml−2f l+2 Z −2ml−2f l−1 
ρI X u u u u
=− du − du + du − du
2π t n=−∞ −2ml−2 u2 −2ml+1 u
2
−2ml−2f l+1 u
2
−2ml−2f l−2 u
2

∞
"Z #
(2ml+2)2 Z (2ml−2)2 Z (2ml+2f l+1)2 Z (2ml+2f l−1)2
ρI X 1 1 1 1
= dx + dx + dx − dx
4π t m=−∞ (2ml+1)2 x (2ml−1)2 x (2ml+2f l+2)2 x (2ml+2f l−2)2 x
∞
(2ml + 2)2 (2ml − 2)2 (2ml + 2f l + 1)2 (2ml + 2f l − 1)2
 
ρI X
= ln + ln + ln + ln
4π t m=−∞ (2ml + 1)2 (2ml − 1)2 (2ml + 2f l + 2)2 (2ml + 2f l − 2)2
∞         
ρI X  2ml + 2   2ml − 2   2ml + 2f l + 1   2ml + 2f l − 1 
= ln   + ln 
 2ml − 1  + ln  2ml + 2f l + 2  + ln  2ml + 2f l − 2 
    
2π t m=−∞ 2ml + 1 

17
In the limit that l → ∞, we recover the expected infinite sample result
 ρ   ln 2 
V = I
t π
In the symmetric case, f = 0.5, the result can be further reduced to:

∞         
ρI X  2ml + 2   2ml − 2   (2m + 1)l + 1   (2m + 1)l − 1 
V = ln 
  + ln 
  + ln 
  + ln 
 
2π t m=−∞ 2ml + 1  2ml − 1  (2m + 1)l + 2  (2m + 1)l − 2 

" ∞      
ρI X  (2m + 1)l + 1   (2m + 1)l − 1   (2m + 2)l + 2 
= 2 ln 2 + ln   + ln 
 (2m + 1)l − 2  + ln  (2m + 2)l + 1  +
  
2π t m=0
(2m + 1)l + 2 
  ∞    
 (2m + 2)l − 2  X  −2ml + 2   −2ml − 2 
ln   + ln   + ln 
 −2ml − 1  +

(2m + 2)l − 1  −2ml + 1 
  m=1 
 (−2m + 1)l + 1   (−2m + 1)l − 1 
ln   + ln 
 (−2m + 1)l − 2 

(−2m + 1)l + 2 

" ∞      
ρI X  (2m + 1)l + 1   (2m + 1)l − 1   (2m + 2)l + 2 
= 2 ln 2 + ln 

 + ln  (2m + 1)l − 2  + ln  (2m + 2)l + 1  +
    
2π t m=0
(2m + 1)l + 2
  ∞    
 (2m + 2)l − 2  X  2ml − 2   2ml + 2 
ln   + ln   + ln 
 2ml + 1  +

(2m + 2)l − 1  m=1
2ml − 1 
   
 (2m − 1)l − 1   (2m − 1)l + 1 
ln   + ln  
(2m − 1)l − 2   (2m − 1)l + 2 

" ∞      
ρI X  (2m + 1)l + 1   (2m + 1)l − 1   (2m + 2)l + 2 
= 2 ln 2 + ln   + ln 
 (2m + 1)l − 2  + ln  (2m + 2)l + 1  +
  
2π t m=0
(2m + 1)l + 2 
  ∞    
 (2m + 2)l − 2  X  (2m + 2)l − 2   (2m + 2)l + 2 
ln   + ln 

 + ln  (2m + 2)l + 1  +
  
(2m + 2)l − 1  m=0
(2m + 2)l − 1
   
 (2m + 1)l − 1   (2m + 1)l + 1 
ln   + ln  
(2m + 1)l − 2   (2m + 1)l + 2 

18
 " ∞      
ρI X  (2m + 1)l + 1   (2m + 1)l − 1   (2m + 2)l + 2 
= 2 ln 2 + ln   + ln 
 (2m + 1)l − 2  + ln  (2m + 2)l + 1  +
  
2π t m=0
(2m + 1)l + 2 
  ∞    
 (2m + 2)l − 2  X  (2m + 1)l − 1   (2m + 1)l + 1 
ln 
  + ln 

 + ln  (2m + 1)l + 2  +
  
(2m + 2)l − 1  m=0
(2m + 1)l − 2
   
 (2m + 2)l − 2   (2m + 2)l + 2 
ln 
  + ln  
(2m + 2)l − 1  (2m + 2)l + 1 

" ∞      
ρI X  (2m + 1)l + 1   (2m + 1)l − 1   (2m + 2)l + 2 
= ln 2 + ln 

 + ln  (2m + 1)l − 2  + ln  (2m + 2)l + 1  +
    
πt m=0
(2m + 1)l + 2
 
 (2m + 2)l − 2 
ln 
 
(2m + 2)l − 1 

" ∞ #
 [(2m + 1)l]2 − 1   [(2m + 2)l]2 − 4 
  
ρI X
= ln 2 + ln   + ln 
2 − 4

 [(2m + 2)l]2 − 1 
πt m=0
[(2m + 1)l]

4. Finite length and width

Finally, one can combine the two summations to express the result for the arbitrary
placement of probes within a rectangular sample as
∞ ∞ 
ρI X X (2ml + 2)2 + (2nw)2 (2ml − 2)2 + (2nw)2
V = ln + ln +
4π t m=−∞ n=−∞ (2ml + 1)2 + (2nw)2 (2ml − 1)2 + (2nw)2
(2ml + 2fl l + 1)2 + (2nw)2 (2ml + 2fl l − 1)2 + (2nw)2
ln + ln +
(2ml + 2fl l + 2)2 + (2nw)2 (2ml + 2fl l − 2)2 + (2nw)2
(2ml + 2)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2 (2ml − 2)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2
ln + ln +
(2ml + 1)2 + (2nw + 2fw )2 (2ml − 1)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2
(2ml + 2fl l + 1)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2
ln +
(2ml + 2fl l + 2)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2
(2ml + 2fl l − 1)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2

ln
(2ml + 2fl l − 2)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2

19
where fl and fw are the corresponding asymmetry placement factors along the length and
width, respectively.
The corresponding correction factor, fc , is
( ∞ ∞ 
X X (2ml + 2)2 + (2nw)2 (2ml − 2)2 + (2nw)2
fc = 4 ln 2 ln 2 + (2nw)2
+ ln 2 + (2nw)2
+
m=−∞ n=−∞
(2ml + 1) (2ml − 1)

(2ml + 2fl l + 1)2 + (2nw)2 (2ml + 2fl l − 1)2 + (2nw)2

ln + ln +
(2ml + 2fl l + 2)2 + (2nw)2 (2ml + 2fl l − 2)2 + (2nw)2

(2ml + 2)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2 (2ml − 2)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2
ln + ln +
(2ml + 1)2 + (2nw + 2fw )2 (2ml − 1)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2

(2ml + 2fl l + 1)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2

ln +
(2ml + 2fl l + 2)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2
−1
(2ml + 2fl l − 1)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2
ln
(2ml + 2fl l − 2)2 + (2nw + 2fw w)2

REFERENCES

1
L. J. Van der Pauw. A method of measuring specific resistivity and Hall effect of discs of
arbitrary shape. Philips Res. Rep., 13:1, 1958.
2
S. Hafizovic and O. Paul. Temperature-dependent thermal conductivities of CMOS lay-
ers by micromachined thermal van der Pauw test structures. Sensors and Actuators A:
Physical, 97:246 – 252, 2002.
3
C. Morales, E. Flores, J. Bodega, F. Leardini, I. J. Ferrer, J. R. Ares, and C. Snchez.
On the van der Pauw’s method applied to the measurement of low thermal conductivity
materials. Review of Scientific Instruments, 87(8):084902, 2016.
4
Johannes de Boor and Volker Schmidt. Complete characterization of thermoelectric ma-
terials by a combined van der Pauw approach. Advanced Materials, 22(38):4303–4307,
2010.
5
Johannes de Boor and Volker Schmidt. Efficient thermoelectric van der Pauw measure-
ments. Applied Physics Letters, 99(2):022102, 2011.
6
O. Paul, P. Ruther, L. Plattner, and H. Baltes. A thermal van der Pauw test structure.
IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf., 13:159–166, 2000.
7
L B Valdes. Resistivity measurements on germanium for transistors. Proceedings of the
IRE, 42:420, 1954.

20
8
B. J.Smith R. Chwang and C. R. Crowell. Contact size effects on the van der Pauw method
for resistivity and Hall coefficient measurement. Solid-St. Electron., 17:1217, 1974.
9
C. Kasl and M. J. R. Hoch. Effects of sample thickness on the van der Pauw technique for
resistivity measurements. Rev. Sci. Instrum., 76:033907, 2005.
10
Daniel W. Koon. Effect of contact size and placement, and of resistive inhomogeneities on
van der Pauw measurements. Rev. Sci. Instrum., 60:271, 1989.
11
Baojia Wu. Finite element analysis of the effect of electrodes placement on accurate
resistivity measurement in a diamond anvil cell with van der Pauw technique. Appl.
Phys., 107:104903, 2010.
12
T. Matsumura and Y. Sato. A theoretical study on van der Pauw measurement values of
inhomogeneous compound semiconductor thin films. J. Mod. Phys., 1:340, 2010.
13
H Liu, Y Zhao, G Ramanath, S P Murarka, and G U Wang. Thickness dependent electrical
resistivity of ultrathin (¡ 40 nm) Cu films. Thin Solid Films, 384:151–156, 2001.
14
F M Smits. Measurements of sheet resistivity with the four-point probe. The Bell System
Technical Journal, 37:711–718, 1958.
15
A. Uhlir Jr. The potentials of infinite systems of sources and numerical solutions of
problems in semiconductor engineering. Bell Syst. Tech. J., 34:105128, Jan. 1955.
16
I Miccoli, F Edler, H Pfnr, and C Tegenkamp. The 100th anniversary of the four-point
probe technique: the role of probe geometries in isotropic and anisotropic systems. Journal
of Physics: Condensed Matter, 27(22):223201, 2015.
17
COMSOL Multiphysics. Comsol multiphysics, 2015.
18
NIST. Van Der Pauw Hall Measurement Typical Data, 2000 (accessed July 24, 2017).
http://www.nist.gov/pml/div683/hall_worksheet2.cfm.

21
 A
I

δ
D
V

L C

(a)

W
I
V fw*W

fl*L S

(b)

FIG. 1: (a) Van der Pauw measurement of the sheet resistivity of a square sample. (b)
Schematic of a four-point probe measurement on a square sample. In both techniques, a
constant current is set between two contacts and the voltage drop is measured across the
two remaining contacts.

22
 1.0
0.700 1.13

1.10
0.8 0.800
Normalized Sample Thickness

1.07

Correction Factor
0.900
0.6 1.04
0.950
0.960
0.970
0.980 1.01
0.4 0.990
0.97

10
Ideal Sample 1.0

1.0 0
2
0.2 0.90
1.0
1.0 30
40
50 0
1.01.06
0.60
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Normalized Contact Size
FIG. 2: Correction factors for non-ideal Van der Pauw measurements on rectangular
samples including the combined effect of finite contact size and finite sample thickness.

23
 0.800
0.900
25 0.98

0.96
Normalized Width

20 0.98
Prohibited Region

0
0.950

Correction Factor
0.960 0.97
15 0 0.90
0.700

10 0.70

0.50
5
0.600
0.500
0.300
0.100
0.10
00 5 10 15 20 25
Normalized Length
FIG. 3: Correction factor for finite sample size in rectangular samples given by equation 7
for fw = fl = 0.5 (Probes placed at center of sample). Our values agree well with the
solution proposed by Smits14 for symmetric probes placement but our derived solution is
also valid for asymmetric probe placement.

24
 1.0
0.500
0.98
0.600
0.8
0.96
Prohibited Region

Prohibited Region

Correction Factor
0.6
0.90
fw

0.4 0.70

00
0.7
0.2 0.600
0.50
0.500
0.10
0.00.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
fl
(a)

1.0
0.500
0.98
0.600
0.8
0.96
Prohibited Region

Prohibited Region

Correction Factor

0.6
0.90
fw

0.4 0.70
0.700

0.2 0.600
0.50
0.500
0.10
0.00.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
fl
(b)

25
 1.0 0.500
0.600
0.700
0.98
0.8
0.96
Prohibited Region

Prohibited Region

Correction Factor
0.6
0.90
fw

0.4 0.70
0.900

0.2 0.8
00 0.50
0.700
0.600 0.10
0.00.0 0.2 0.4
0.500
0.6 0.8 1.0
fl
(c)

1.0 0.500
0.600
0.700
0.98
0.8
0.96
Prohibited Region

Prohibited Region

Correction Factor

0.6
0.800

0.90
fw

0.4 0.70
0.900

0.2 0.50
0.700
0.600 0.10
0.00.0 0.2 0.4
0.500
0.6 0.8 1.0
fl
(d)

26
 1.0 0.500
0.600
0.700
0.900
0.98
0.8

0.960
0.96
Prohibited Region

Prohibited Region

Correction Factor
0.6
0.90
fw

0.970

0.4 0.70
0.98
0

0.2 0.50

50
0.9
0.800 0.700
0.600
0.10
0.00.0 0.2 0.4
0.500
0.6 0.8 1.0
fl
(e)

1.0 0.600
0.700

0.98
0.8
0.96
Prohibited Region

Prohibited Region

Correction Factor

0.6
0.90
0.950
fw

0.4 0.70
0.970

0.960

0.2 0.980 0.50

0
0.90

0.700 0.800 0.10

0.00.0 0.2 0.4
0.600
0.6 0.8 1.0
fl
(f)

27
FIG. 4: Comparison between analytical (a, c, e) and numerical (b, d, f) correction factors
for asymmetric probe placement in square samples for a normalized width and length of 5
(a, b), 10 (c, d) and 30 (e, f). The analytical solution is given by equation 7.

22.95 mm

22.849 mm

(a)

22.95 mm

22.849 mm

(b)

FIG. 5: Comparison between analytical and experimental values for the correction factor
of four-point probe measurements. Experimental data collected with a four-point probe set
up with s = 1 mm along (a) vertical and (b) horizontal lines. Analytical solution given by
Equation 7.

28
 1.2

1.0

0.8
Correction Factor

0.6 t/s=0.2
t/s=0.4
t: sample thickness
0.4 L: sample lateral size t/s=0.8
t/s=1
t/s=1.4
0.2 t/s=2
t/s=4
0.00 5 10 15 20 25
Normalized Sample Size

(a)

8
Normalized Sample Thickness over Probe Sapcing

Sample too Thick

0.200
7 0.97

6
0.95
Correction Factor

5 0.300
Prohibited Region

0.80
4

3 0.60
0.500

2 0.600
0.700 0.30
0.800
1 0.900
0.950
0.960 0.970 0.10
Sample too Small Ideal Sample
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Normalized Sample Size over Probe Spacing

(b)

FIG. 6: Correction factor for four-point probe measurements. (a) effect of sample size for
normalized thicknesses going from 0.2 to 4. (b) combined effect of sample size and
thickness.

29
 (a)

(b)

FIG. 7: Top (a) and perspective views (b) of the electrical potential within an etched
bilayer sample during a four-point probe experiment. The relative thickness and resistivity
of the substrate can have a pronounced influence on the measured resistivity.

30
 1e7
9.0
1.2 8.0
00
8.0
00
7.0
00
1.0 6.0 6.0
00

Correction Factor
5.0 4.0
0.8 00
σfilm/tfilm

4.0
0.6
00 2.0
3.0
0 0 1.4
0.4
2.000 1.2
0.2
11.500
1..430000 1.0
1.101.2
0 00
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
σsubstrate/tsubstrate 1e7

(a)

1e7
1.2 8.0
9.0
00
1.0 8.0
0 0 6.0
7.0
00
Correction Factor

6.0
0.8 00 4.0
σfilm/tfilm

5.0
00
0.6 2.0
4.0
00

0.4 3.00 1.4

0

1.2
0.2 2.000
11.5
.43000000
1.
1.2
1.10000
1.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
σsubstrate/tsubstrate 1e7

(b)

FIG. 8: Correction factors for four-point probe measurements on square bilayer samples.
(a) Film and substrate have same lateral dimension. (b) Lateral dimension of substrate is
five times the film’s lateral dimension corresponding to an etched sample.

31
 A
I

δ
D
V

L C

t
W
I
V fw*W

fl*L S

t
 1.0
0.700 1.13

1.10
0.8 0.800
Normalized Sample Thickness

1.07

Correction Factor
0.900
0.6 1.04
0.950
0.960
0.970
0.980 1.01
0.4 0.990
0.97

10
Ideal Sample 1.0

1.0 0
2
0.2 0.90
1.0
1.0 30
40
50 0
1.01.06
0.60
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Normalized Contact Size
 0.800
0.900
25 0.98

0.96
Normalized Width

20 0.98
Prohibited Region

0
0.950

Correction Factor
0.960 0.97
15 0 0.90
0.700

10 0.70

0.50
5
0.600
0.500
0.300
0.100
0.10
00 5 10 15 20 25
Normalized Length
 1.0
0.500
0.98
0.600
0.8
0.96
Prohibited Region

Prohibited Region

Correction Factor
0.6
0.90
fw

0.4 0.70

00
0.7
0.2 0.600
0.50
0.500
0.10
0.00.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
fl
 1.0
0.500
0.98
0.600
0.8
0.96
Prohibited Region

Prohibited Region

Correction Factor
0.6
0.90
fw

0.4 0.70
0.700

0.2 0.600
0.50
0.500
0.10
0.00.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
fl
 1.0 0.500
0.600
0.700
0.98
0.8
0.96
Prohibited Region

Prohibited Region

Correction Factor
0.6
0.90
fw

0.4 0.70
0.900

0.2 0.8
00 0.50
0.700
0.600 0.10
0.00.0 0.2 0.4
0.500
0.6 0.8 1.0
fl
 1.0 0.500
0.600
0.700
0.98
0.8
0.96
Prohibited Region

Prohibited Region

Correction Factor
0.6
0.800

0.90
fw

0.4 0.70
0.900

0.2 0.50
0.700
0.600 0.10
0.00.0 0.2 0.4
0.500
0.6 0.8 1.0
fl
 1.0 0.500
0.600
0.700
0.900
0.98
0.8 0.960
0.96
Prohibited Region

Prohibited Region

Correction Factor
0.6
0.90
fw

0.970

0.4 0.70
0.98
0

0.2 0.50

50
0.800 0.9 0.10
0.700
0.600
0.00.0 0.2 0.4
0.500
0.6 0.8 1.0
fl
 1.0 0.600
0.700

0.98
0.8
0.96
Prohibited Region

Prohibited Region

Correction Factor
0.6
0.90
0.950
fw

0.4 0.70
0.970

0.960
0.2 0.980 0.50

0
0.90
0.700 0.800 0.10
0.00.0 0.2 0.4
0.600
0.6 0.8 1.0
fl
22.95 mm

22.849 mm
22.95 mm

22.849 mm
 1.2

1.0

0.8
Correction Factor

0.6 t/s=0.2
t/s=0.4
t: sample thickness
0.4 L: sample lateral size t/s=0.8
t/s=1
t/s=1.4
0.2 t/s=2
t/s=4
0.00 5 10 15 20 25
Normalized Sample Size
Normalized Sample Thickness over Probe Sapcing 8 Sample too Thick
0.200
7 0.97

6
0.95

Correction Factor
5 0.300
Prohibited Region

0.80
4

3 0.60
0.500

2 0.600
0.700 0.30
0.800
1 0.900
0.9600 0.970
0.95
0.10
Sample too Small Ideal Sample
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Normalized Sample Size over Probe Spacing
 1e7
9.0
1.2 8.0
00
8.0
00
7.0
00
1.0 6.0 6.0
00

Correction Factor
5.0 4.0
0.8 00
σfilm/tfilm

4.0
0.6
00 2.0
3.0
00 1.4
0.4
2.000 1.2
0.2
11.500
11..4
.3200000 1.0
1.100 0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
σsubstrate/tsubstrate 1e7
 1e7
1.2 8.0
9.0
00
1.0 8.0
00 6.0
7.0
00

Correction Factor
6.0
0.8 00 4.0
σfilm/tfilm

5.0
00
0.6 2.0
4.0
00

0.4 3.00 1.4

0

1.2
0.2 2.000
11..4500
11..3200000 1.0
1.1000
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
σsubstrate/tsubstrate 1e7