Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:26:40.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Wafer Nanotopography Effects on CMP: Experimental Validation of Modeling Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2011

Brian Lee
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA
Duane S. Boning
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA
Winthrop Baylies
Affiliation:
BayTech Group, Weston MA
Noel Poduje
Affiliation:
ADE Corporation, Westwood MA
Pat Hester
Affiliation:
ADE Corporation, Westwood MA
Yong Xia
Affiliation:
ADE Corporation, Westwood MA
John Valley
Affiliation:
ADE Phase-Shift, Tucson AZ
Chris Koliopoulus
Affiliation:
ADE Phase-Shift, Tucson AZ
Dale Hetherington
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque NM
HongJiang Sun
Affiliation:
Philips Semiconductor, Albuquerque NM
Michael Lacy
Affiliation:
Lam Research, Fremont CA
Get access

Abstract

Nanotopography refers to 10-100 nm surface height variations that exist on a lateral millimeter length scale on unpatterned silicon wafers. Chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) of deposited or grown films (e.g., oxide or nitride) on such wafers can generate undesirable film thinning which can be of substantial concern in shallow trench isolation (STI) manufacturability. Proper simulation of the effect of nanotopography on post-CMP film thickness is needed to help in the measurement, analysis, diagnosis, and correction of potential problems.

Our previous work has focused on modeling approaches that seek to capture the thinning and post-CMP film thickness variation that results from nanotopography, using different modeling approaches. The importance of relative length scale of the CMP process used (planarization length) to the length scale of the nanotopography on the wafer (nanotopography length) has been suggested.

In this work, we report on extensive experiments using sets of 200 mm epi wafers with a variety of nanotopography signatures (i.e., different nanotopography lengths), and CMP processes of various planarization lengths. Experimental results indicate a clear relationship between the relative scales of planarization length and nanotopography length: when the planarization length is less than the nanotopography length, little thinning occurs; when the CMP process has a larger planarization length, surface height variations are transferred into thin film thickness variations. In addition to presenting these experimental results, modeling of the nanotopography effect on dielectric CMP processes is reviewed, and measurement data from the experiments are compared to model predictions. Results show a good correlation between the model prediction and the experimental data.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2001

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. Xu, S., “Effects of Silicon Front Surface Topography on Silicon Oxide Chemical Mechanical Planarization,” Electrochemical and Solid State Letters, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 181182, 1998.Google Scholar
2. Ravi, K.V., “Wafer Flatness Requirements for Future Technologies,” Future Fab International, no. 7, pp. 207.Google Scholar
3. Ouma, D., Modeling of Chemical Mechanical Polishing for Dielectric Planarization, Ph.D Thesis, MIT, Nov. 1998.Google Scholar
4. Chekina, O. G. and Keer, L.M., “Wear-contact problems and modeling of chemical mechanical polishing,” J. Elec. Soc., vol. 145, no. 6, pp. 21002106, Jun. 1998.10.1149/1.1838603Google Scholar
5. Yoshida, T., “Three-dimensional chemical mechanical polishing process mode by BEM,” ECS Conf., Oct. 1999.Google Scholar
6. Lee, B., Gan, T., Boning, D., Hester, P., Poduje, N., Baylies, W., “Nanotopography Effects on Chemical Mechanical Polishing for Shallow Trench Isolation,” Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, Sept. 2000, pp. 425432.Google Scholar