0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

A Modeling Approach for Predicting the Abrasive Particle Motion During Chemical Mechanical Polishing

[+] Author and Article Information
Elon J. Terrell

Department of Mechanical Engineering,Carnegie Mellon University

C. Fred Higgs III1

Department of Mechanical Engineering,Carnegie Mellon Universityhiggs@andrew.cmu.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Tribol 129(4), 933-941 (Apr 18, 2007) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2768614 History: Received March 17, 2006; Revised April 18, 2007

Chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) is a manufacturing process in which a wafer surface is polished by pressing it against a rotating pad that is flooded with slurry. The slurry itself is a fluid containing abrasive particles. Past experimentation has shown that the distribution of suspended particles in the slurry is significantly related to the distribution of material removal on the wafer during CMP. Therefore, this study involves the development and simulation of a model that predicts the kinematics and trajectory of the abrasive particles. The simulation results compare well to data from shear cell experiments data conducted by other researchers.

Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Wafer-pad interface domain showing locations of abrasive particles

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Effect of wafer height on the ensemble average particle velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Time-averaged particle velocity profile at (a)xfocus=−0.03m, (b)xfocus=−0.01m, (c)xfocus=0.01m, and (d)xfocus=−0.01m, compared to the fluid velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Time-averaged particle velocity profile as a function of ywafer, xfocus=0.01m

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Number of particle collisions with the wafer surface for each simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Diagram of the modeling domain from the current study that emulated the shear cell experiment by Ng (16)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison between the near-wall particle velocity measured by Ng (16) and the corresponding velocity extracted from the simulation of the current study

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

(a) Diagram of the Couette shear cell domain of Shapley (17) and (b) the simulation domain that was defined in order to compare to Shapley ’s experimental results

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison between Shapley ’s (17) experimental data and the results from simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Diagrams showing (a) the constant pad velocity lines during CMP and (b) the discrete focus areas in the wafer-pad interface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Diagram delineating the simulation domain

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Diagram of the CMP process

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

One-dimensional diagram of a CMP process, and the simplified modeling domain defined in the current study

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Simulation output of velocity vectors of particle-free slurry flow field

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

(a) SEM image of the simulated “pad” surface used in the particle flow visualization experiments by Ng (16) and (b) two-dimensional diagram of the simplified CMP domain of Ng (16)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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

Related Content

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

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

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

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