Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:48:40.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Physics and Applications of DIP Coating and Spin Coating

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

L. E. Scriven*
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, & Materials Science and Center for Interfacial Engineering, University of Minnesota, 421 Washington Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455
Get access

Abstract

Dip coating is a simple old way of depositing onto a substrate, especially small slabs and cylinders, a uniform thin film of liquid for solidification into a coating. The basic flow is steady, and in it film thickness is set by the competition among viscous force, capillary (surface tension) force and gravity. Thickness and uniformity can be sensitive to flow conditions in the liquid bath and gas overhead. The faster the substrate is withdrawn, the thicker the film deposited. This can be countered by using volatile solutes and combining rapid enough drying with the basic liquid flow. Then the physics grows more complicated, theoretical prediction of process performance more difficult, and control of the process more demanding. Outside product R&D labs it is far less often used in precision coating manufacture than a variety of premetered coating methods.

Spin coating is a more recently developed way of getting onto piecemeal substrates, especially small flat disks, a uniform thin liquid film for the same end. The basic flow is unsteady radial drainage in which centrifugal and viscous forces so compete that ordinary (Newtonian) liquid of constant viscosity tends toward a uniform film that grows ever thinner ever more slowly. Volatile solvents are commonly used because conditions can often be found that adequately separate thinning by spin-off from later thinning and solidification by drying. Thickness and uniformity, today theoretically predictable, are sensitive to speed, gas conditions, and rheology of concentrating, solidifying liquid. For the rheology of photoresist coating in microelectronics, spin coating works well. For that of suspension coatings in magnetic disk technology the process demands more careful control; actually it is often modified.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

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

Blake, T. D., Surfactants, ed. by Tadros, Th. F. (American Press, London, 1984) pp. 221275.Google Scholar
2. Spiers, R. P., Subbaraman, C. V. and Wilkinson, W. L., Chem. Eng. Sci., 29, 389396 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Landau, L. D. and Levich, B. G., Acta Physicochim. U.R.S.S., 17, 4254 (1942).Google Scholar
4. Spiers, R. P., Subbaraman, C. V. and Wilkinson, W. L., Chem. Eng. Sci., 30, 379395 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Kistler, S. F. and Scriven, L. E., Chapter 8 of Computational Analysis of Polymer Processing, ed. by Pearson, J. R. A. and Richardson, S. M. (Applied Science Publishers Ltd., Essex 1983) pp. 244299.Google Scholar
6. Kistler, S. F. and Scriven, L. E., Internati. J. Num. Meth. Fluids, 4, 207229 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Tanguy, P., Fortin, M. and Choplin, L., Internati. J. Num. Meth. Fluids, 4, 441457 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Sartor, L., Brandt, S. A. and Scriven, L. E., Research in progress (1988).Google Scholar
9. Teletzke, G. F., Davis, H. T. and Scriven, L. E., Revue Phys. Appl., 23, xxx-yyy (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Servida, A. A., Davis, H. T. and Scriven, L. E., Research in progress (1988).Google Scholar
11. Davis, H. T., Benner, R. E. Jr, Scriven, L. E. and Teletzke, G. F., in Surfactants in Solution Vol. 6 ed. by Mittal, K. L. and Bothorel, P. (Plenum N.Y. 1986), pp. 14851524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Bornside, D. E., Macosko, C. W. and Scriven, L. E., J. Imaging Tech., to be published (1988).Google Scholar
13. Bornside, D. E., Macosko, C. W. and Scriven, L. E., J. Imaging Tech., 13, 122129 (1987).Google Scholar
14. Groenveld, P., Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. J., 17, 489490 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Higgins, B. G. and Scriven, L. E., Chem. Eng. Sci., 35, 673682 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Emalie, A. G., Bonner, F. T. and Peck, L. G., J. Appl. Phys., 29, 858862 (1958).Google Scholar
17. Higgins, B. G., Phys. Fluids, 29, 35223529 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Middleman, S., J. Appl. Phys., 62, 25302532 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Meyerhofer, D., J. Appl. Phys., 49, 39933997 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Skidmore, K., Semiconductor International, 5762 (Feb. 1988).Google Scholar
21. Crooks, W. and Leung, W. C., Proc. 1987 Intermag Conf., Tokyo, in press (1988).Google Scholar