1 / 45

550 likes | 1.07k Views

Statistical Characterization of the Chemical-Mechanical Polishing Process. A Presentation at the XVI Oklahoma State University Research Week . Prahalada K Rao School of Industrial Engineering and Management. Introduction: Why CMP.

Download Presentation
## Statistical Characterization of the Chemical-Mechanical Polishing Process

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only.
Download presentation by click this link.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

**Statistical Characterization of the Chemical-Mechanical**Polishing Process A Presentation at the XVI Oklahoma State University Research Week Prahalada K Rao School of Industrial Engineering and Management**Introduction: Why CMP**• Conventional semiconductor manufacturing processes (CVD) have flaws. • Notably planarity concerns. Notice the “bird beak” structure in the adjoining figure (Zantye, 2004). • CMP is the only known method to achieve both local and global planarity and thus facilitate miniaturization. • The basic principle: Use a chemical reaction to soften material and then mechanically polish off this layer. IEM-MAE OSU**The Advantages and Challenges**• Excellent Planarization. • Indifference to wafer surface. • Reduce defects. IEM-MAE OSU Zantye, 2004**Resources**LapMaster Lapping M/c Wafer Carrier Polishing Pad Strasborough CMP M/c Retaining Ring IEM-MAE OSU**Challenges in CMP**• Complexity of CMP Process IEM-MAE OSU**Method of Analysis**• The material in these slides is presented using the Theory of Constraints approach. • The data used for this research is primarily sourced from US patent 6564116 B2.The objective of the research can be briefly summarized as follows. • Part 1- Classification: To understand the behavior of key process input variables (KPIV’s). • Part 2 – Correlation : To illuminate the effect of the KPIV’s on key process output variables (KPOV’s) namely MRR and Within-wafer-non uniformity (WIWNU) . • Part 3 – Effect-Cause-effect : Contribute to the physical understanding of the process. IEM-MAE OSU**Design of Experiment and ANOVA - US patent 6564116 B2.**(Wang et al, 2001) IEM-MAE OSU**Part 1: Classification.**The main factors that affect the MRR and WIWNU are classified – What’s happening?**Part 1: Classification for MRR**• Platen Speed, Down Force • and Solid Content are the • KPIV’s that affect MRR most. • Back Pressure and Time are • relatively benign KPIV’s. IEM-MAE OSU**Part 1: Classification for MRR – how the variables behave**IEM-MAE OSU**Part 1: Classification for WIWNU**Most significant A: Solid Content B: Down Force C: Back Pressure D: RPM E: Time • Platen Speed and Back Pressure • are KPIV’s that affect WIWNU most. • Solid Content and Down Force are • relatively benign. • Interaction effects are more significant • than the KPIV’s (knobs) themselves. Least Significant IEM-MAE OSU**Part 1: Classification for WIWNU – how the variables**behave. A: Solid Content B: Down Force C: Back Pressure D: Platen speed E: Time Needs further investigation Non Linear Non Linear Non Linear Monotonically Increasing • MRR and WIWNU are governed by different set of factors (variables), some of them acting in opposition in each response. IEM-MAE OSU**Part 2: Correlation**Correlate the KPIV’s to the KPOV’s. How is it happening?**Part 2: Correlation for MRRA: Solid Content (wt%), B: Down**Force (psi), C: Back Pressure (psi), D: Platen Speed (RPM), E: Time (Sec) • The regression equation for mean MRR obtained as a results of the statistical analysis can be written as A: Solid Content B: Down Force C: Back Pressure D: Platen speed E: Time IEM-MAE OSU**Model Validation for MRR**IEM-MAE OSU**Explaining Significant Interactions – MRR**IEM-MAE OSU**Part 2: Correlation for WIWNUA: Solid Content (wt%), B: Down**Force (psi), C: Back Pressure (psi), D: Platen Speed (RPM), E: Time (Sec) • On the basis of a regression model connecting the mean WIWNU with the various factors can be written as… • Notice the three way interactions in the equation, these are not seen in the MRR equation. A: Solid Content B: Down Force C: Back Pressure D: Platen speed E: Time IEM-MAE OSU**Model Validation for WIWNU**IEM-MAE OSU**Significant Interaction effects for WIWNU**IEM-MAE OSU**Logarithmic Regression**• The data was subjected to a logarithmic regression procedure. • The regression equation is • The equation above is in close conjunction with the Preston’s equation. It is imperative to note that a time domain is considered. Preston’s Equation Form C: Solid Content. P: Down Force V:RPM t: Time γ:Back Pressure IEM-MAE OSU**Part 3: Effect- Cause-Effect**Leverage the understanding, optimize towards the goal and stretch the correlation.**Part 3: Effect-Cause-Effect - MRR**IEM-MAE OSU**Effect-Cause-Effect - WIWNU**IEM-MAE OSU**Statistical and Dynamic Comparison to the Lapping Process**Take a designed experiments approach to characterize the lapping process Extrapolate results to the CMP process.**Motivation and Introduction**• Can we provide an experimental basis for our conclusions regarding CMP? • A study of a similar process and analysis of the same would provide an excellent starting point. • Lapping is a super finishing process, utilized to achieve submicron surface roughness. Prominent researchers contend Lapping and CMP are closely related. • Material removal mechanisms have been shown to match. IEM-MAE OSU**KPOV = f (KPIV)**KPIV KPOV IEM-MAE OSU**Lapping Machine**Polishing Pads Sensor DAQ system 8728 A 500 Kistler Accelerometer IEM-MAE OSU**How do we decide the KPIV’s and KPOV’s**Customer Requirement IEM-MAE OSU**Results from DOE (Taguchi L8) analysis.**• Cannot just predict roughness given parameters alone. BAD! IEM-MAE OSU**Sensor Based Modeling**DOE doesn't work that well, so what do we do?**Principal Component Analysis- PCA**• The following features were extracted from the sensor based data. • Peak to Peak amplitude – P2P • Energy • Variance • Kurtosis. • A grand matrix consisting of these features was constructed. • This matrix, also called the features matrix is subjected to a PCA, to recognize the most telling features IEM-MAE OSU**The Features Matrix**IEM-MAE OSU**Underlying Hypothesis and Results.**• Implicit Conclusions • Cannot predict the process based on parameters alone • Process is essentially non-linear • Need sensor based modeling IEM-MAE OSU**Summary of results from Hypothesis 3**Notice closeness With CMP IEM-MAE OSU**System Development**Based on: Dornfeld et al , ‘An investigation of material removal mechanisms in Lapping’ ,Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, ASME , Vol 122 pp. 413- 2000 From Hanna-Tobias machine tool dynamics model IEM-MAE OSU**Model development**Measuring this Simulink Model Block Diagram IEM-MAE OSU**Simulation parameters.**• %------------------------------------------------- • %M-File for 'tuning' the model to observed results • %------------------------------------------------- • m =1 %mass of the system in kg • lambda =1.485e7 %hanna tobias stiffness fcn • HW =45 %VHN of aluminium • beta1 = 350000; %nonlinear constant coeff • beta2 = 350000; %nonlinear constant coeff • HP =91 %Hardness of Plate - VHN of Silicon Carbide • A = (pi*9/4)*2.56/100 %surface area exposed to lapping - 3" dia workpiece • Dm = 78e-3 %mean dia of abrasive in mm • Dmin = 25e-3 %min dia of abrasives in mm • Dmax = 125e-3 %max dia of abrasives in mm • Dsigma = (Dmax-Dmin)/2.99 %stdev of the grain size in mm • alpha = 0.95; %geometric coeffcient • T = alpha*HW/((1+(HW/HP)^2)^0.5) • P = 3.2e3 %density of Silicon Carbide Grit kg/m3 • Pd = 1000 %density of water kg/m3 • M = 0.16 %grain to fluid work ratio • K = (1+(P/(Pd*M))) • N = 6*A*Dmax/(pi*((Dm)^3)*K) • G = N*T • dint = 0.001; %initial displacement • h =1008050 %Hysteresis damping coefficent • w = 10 %Region where energy peaks are observed in the data IEM-MAE OSU**THEORY**REALITY IEM-MAE OSU**Reality**Theory IEM-MAE OSU**My Research tool kit.**• Designed Experiments • Response Surface methodology. • Regression modeling. • Theory of Constraints. • Process Simulation. • Process Modeling • Six Sigma Approaches. • Principal Component Analysis. • Sensor based monitoring and modeling. Future focus • Illuminate the reason for the interactions. • Provide a physical model for CMP. • Introduce sensor based control techniques. IEM-MAE OSU**Acknowledgements**• Dr R. Komanduri. http://www.okstate.edu/MAE/maerl/mpmrl.html http://www2.mae.okstate.edu/Faculty/koman/koman.html • Dr S.T.S. Bukkapatnam. http://www.okstate.edu/ceat/iem/iepeople/bukkapatnam/default.htm • We thank the National Science Foundation (Grant # 0427840) for their generous support of this research. • WenChen Lih – PhD Student, MAE. IEM-MAE OSU

More Related