Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:16:48.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determining Pad-Wafer Contact using Dual Emission Laser Induced Fluorescence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Caprice Gray ,
Chris Rogers ,
Vincent P. Manno ,
Robert White ,
Mansour Moinpour  and
Sriram Anjur
Caprice Gray
Affiliation:
[email protected], Tufts University, Mechanical Engineering, 8 Old Colony Lane #3, Arlington, MA, 02476, United States, 617-875-8845, 617-627-3058
Chris Rogers
Affiliation:
[email protected], Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, United States
Vincent P. Manno
Affiliation:
[email protected], Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, United States
Robert White
Affiliation:
[email protected], Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, United States
Mansour Moinpour
Affiliation:
[email protected], Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, 95052, United States
Sriram Anjur
Affiliation:
[email protected], Cabot Microelectronics, Aurora, IL, 60504, United States
Get access

Abstract

It is becoming increasingly clear that understanding the small scale polishing mechanisms operating during CMP requires knowledge of the nature of the pad-wafer contact. Dual Emission Laser Induced Fluorescence (DELIF) can be used to study the fluid layer profile between the polishing pad and the wafer during CMP. Interactions between the polishing pad surface and the wafer can then be deduced from the fluid layer profile. Previous investigations of pad-wafer interactions using DELIF include in-situ measurements of average fluid layer thickness and asperity layer compressibility, surface roughness measurements and polishing pad rebound into etched wells. In this paper, DELIF is used to determine pad-wafer contact, the point at the fluid film thickness goes to zero. We present a technique and some preliminary data for instantaneous measurement of in-situ pad-wafer contact using DELIF. The imaging area is 1.30×1.74 mm with a resolution of 2.5 μm/pixel. At this magnification, some regions imaged contain contact, whereas others do not. For the contact regions discussed in this paper, contact percentage varies from 0.07% to 0.27% on a Cabot Microelectronics D100 polishing pad. The asperity contact area increases with applied load, which was varied from 0.28 to 3.1 psi.

Keywords

CMPthin filmtribology
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 991: Symposium C – Advances and Challenges in Chemical Mechanical Planarization , 2007 , 0991-C01-04
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1 Yi, J., IEEE Trans. Sem. Man., 18 (3), 359, (2005).Google Scholar
2 Cook, L. M.. J. of Non-Crys. Solids, 120, 152 (1990).Google Scholar
3 Paul, E.. J. Electrochem. Soc., 148 (6), G355 (2001).Google Scholar
4 Glovnea, R. P., Forrest, A. K., Olver, A. V. and Spikes, H. A.. Trib. Let., 15(3), 217, (2003).Google Scholar
5 Muldowney, G. P., Elmufdi, C. L., Palaparthi, R., Tselepidakis, D. P., Natu, S. G., and Vikas, V.. (CMP-MIC Proc., Freemont, CA, 2006) pp. 262–271.Google Scholar
6 Elmufdi, C. L., Muldowney, G. P.. “The Impact of Pad Microtexture and Material Properties on Surface Contact and Defectivity in CMP”, 11th International CMP Symposium, Lake Placid, NY, 2006.Google Scholar
7 Gray, C, Apone, D, Rogers, C, Manno, V P, Barns, C, Moinpour, M, Anjur, S, and Philipossian, A. Electrochem. Solid State Let. 8, G109, (2005).Google Scholar
8 Apone, D, Gray, C, Rogers, C, Manno, V, Barns, C, Moinpour, M, Anjur, S, and Philipossian, A.(Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 867 San Francisco, CA, 2005) pp. W2.3.Google Scholar
9 Gray, C, Apone, D, Barns, C, Moinpour, M, Anjur, S, Manno, V, and Rogers, C. (Mater. Res.Soc. Proc.867 San Francisco, CA, 2005), pp. W5.4.Google Scholar
10 Coppeta, J and Rogers, C. Exp. in Fluids, 25, 1, (1998).Google Scholar
11 Hidrovo, C. H. and Hart, D. P.. Meas. Sci. & Tech., 12, 467, (2001).Google Scholar
12 Hidrovo, C. H., Brau, R. R, and Hart, D. P.. Applied Optics, 43 (4), 894, (2004).Google Scholar
13 Borucki, L.. (private communication, March 2007).Google Scholar
14 Borucki, L., Witelski, T., Please, C. Kramer, P. and Schwendeman, D.. (CAMP Symposium 13, Lake Placid, NY, 2003).Google Scholar
15 Lawing, A. S.. (5th Int. Symp on CMP, Philadelphia, PA, 2002).Google Scholar