Prior work has shown that there exist a sub-ambient fluid pressure at the interface between a rigid flat and the polishing pad during chemical mechanical polishing (CMP). This sub-ambient fluid pressure can have a significant impact on the polishing process since its magnitude may be similar to the applied load, depending on conditions. Further results have shown that there is a relationship between pad soaking time and the magnitude of this sub-ambient fluid pressure. This paper addresses measurements of the pad soaking time versus the magnitude of the sub-ambient interfacial fluid pressure. Experiments utilized a Rodel IC1000 polishing pad made of foamed polyurethane with average void size of 30 to 50 microns. Pad soaking tests indicated that the weight of the pad increased with soaking time due to water absorption. There is a high rate of water absorption initially before the pad becomes saturated and the mass of the pad stabilizes. It is also observed that the pad material is impermeable to water and most of the water penetrated only the topmost layer of voids in the material. These experiments suggest that the water progressively “softens” the top layers of the pad during the soaking and causes the sub-ambient fluid pressure to increase in magnitude. A model of the sub-ambient fluid pressure increasing as the elastic modulus of the pad decreases is also suggested.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
chemical mechanical polishing, sorption, porosity, interface phenomena, pressure measurement, elastic moduli, permeability
Topics:
Elastic moduli, Fluid pressure, Polishing, Water, Weight (Mass), Stress
1.
Jairath
,
R.
,
Farkas
,
J.
,
Huang
,
C. K.
,
Stell
,
M.
, and
Tzeng
,
S-M.
,
1994
, “
Chemical-Mechanical Polishing: Process Manufacturability
,”
Solid State Technol.
,
37
(
7
), pp.
71
–
77
.
2.
Li
,
S. H.
, and
Miller
,
R. O.
,
2000
, “
Chemical Mechanical Polishing in Silicon Processing
,”
Semicond. Semimetals
,
63
pp.
159
159
.
3.
Shan, L., 2000, “Mechanical Interactions at the Interface of Chemical Mechanical Polishing,” Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Inst. of Tech., Atlanta, GA.
4.
Oliver, M. R., Schmidt, R. E., and Robinson, M., “CMP Pad Surface Roughness and CMP Removal Rate,” paper from the internet: http://www.rodel.com/common/ca/list.asp?caid=25&groupname=2000
5.
Murarka, S. P., and Gutmann, R., 1994, “1994 Annual Report of the New York State SCOE,” Semiconductor Research Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
6.
Obeng, Y., Dogariu, A., and Forsthoefel, K., “Mechanical and Chemical Properties of Pads for Use in Chemo-Mechanical Processing (CMP),” from the internet: http://www.creol.ucf.edu/people/faculty/kcr/cmp2.pdf
7.
Hogan
,
J. M.
,
Pearson
,
C. J.
,
Rogers
,
T. H.
, and
White
,
J. R.
, 1973, “Humidity Characteristics of HR and Hot Urethane Foams,” J. Cell. Plast., Sept./Oct., pp. 219–225.
8.
Philips, L. N., and Parker, D. B. V., 1964, Polyurethanes: Chemistry, Technology and Properties, Iliffe Books, London, pp. 98–100.
9.
Levert, J. L., 1997, “Interface Mechanics of Chemical Mechanical Polishing for Integrated-Circuit Planarization,” Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Inst. of Tech., Atlanta, Georgia.
10.
Shan, L., Levert, J. L., and Danyluk, S., Apr 1998, “Pressure Distribution at the Silicon/Polishing Pad Interface,” Proceedings of ASPE Spring Topical Meeting on Silicon Machining, pp. 96–100.
11.
Shan
,
L.
,
Levert
,
J. L.
,
Meade
,
L.
,
Tichy
,
J.
, and
Danyluk
,
S.
,
2000
, “
Interfacial Fluid Mechanics and Pressure Prediction in Chemical Mechanical Polishing
,”
ASME J. Tribol.
,
122
(
3
), pp.
539
–
543
.
12.
Johnson, K. L., 1985, Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 41.
13.
Greenwood
,
J. A.
, and
Williamson
,
J. B. P.
,
1966
, “
Contact of Nominally Flat Rough Surfaces
,”
Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A
,
A295
, pp.
300
–
319
.
Copyright © 2003
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.