A fundamental model proposed for material removal in chemical–mechanical polishing

Xin, Jianguo; Cai, Wei; Tichy, John

doi:10.1016/j.wear.2009.12.005

Cited by 47 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the microscopic and molecular level, various mechanisms for material removal by the individual polishing particles have been proposed including nanometer-size fractures, 1,2 chemical condensation, and hydrolysis, 3 and plastic abrasive wear or deformation. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] The most widely accepted is the "chemical tooth" mechanism proposed by Cook. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] The most widely accepted is the "chemical tooth" mechanism proposed by Cook.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanism and Simulation of Removal Rate and Surface Roughness During Optical Polishing of Glasses

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glass optics with ultra‐low roughness surfaces (<2 Å rms) are strongly desired for high‐end optical applications (e.g., lasers, spectroscopy, etc.). The complex microscopic interactions that occur between slurry particles and the glass workpiece during optical polishing ultimately determine the removal rate and resulting surface roughness of the workpiece. In this study, a comprehensive set of 100 mm diameter glass samples (fused silica, phosphate, and borosilicate) were polished using various slurry particle size distributions (PSD), slurry concentrations, and pad treatments. The removal rate and surface roughness of the glasses were characterized using white light interferometry and atomic force microscopy. The material removal mechanism for a given slurry particle is proposed to occur via nano‐plastic deformation (plastic removal) or via chemical reaction (molecular removal) depending on the slurry particle load on the glass surface. Using an expanded Hertzian contact model, called the Ensemble Hertzian Multi‐gap (EHMG) model, a platform has been developed to understand the microscopic interface interactions and to predict trends of the removal rate and surface roughness for a variety of polishing parameters. The EHMG model is based on multiple Hertzian contacts of slurry particles at the workpiece–pad interface in which the pad deflection and the effective interface gap at each pad asperity height are determined. Using this, the interface contact area and each particle's penetration, load, and contact zone are determined which are used to calculate the material removal rate and simulate the surface roughness. Each of the key polishing variables investigated is shown to affect the material removal rate, whose changes are dominated by very different microscopic interactions. Slurry PSD impacts the load per particle distribution and the fraction of particles removing material by plastic removal. The slurry concentration impacts the areal number density of particles and fraction of load on particles versus pad. The pad topography impacts the fraction of pad area making contact with the workpiece. The glass composition predominantly impacts the depth of plastic removal. Also, the results show that the dominant factor controlling surface roughness is the slurry PSD followed by the glass material's removal function and the pad topography. The model compares well with the experimental data over a variety of polishing conditions for both removal rate and roughness and can be extended to provide insights and strategies to develop practical, economic processes for obtaining ultra‐low roughness surfaces while simultaneously maintaining high material removal rates.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanism and Simulation of Removal Rate and Surface Roughness During Optical Polishing of Glasses

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…36 Thus, compared with samples S1 and S2, sample S3 has lower embedded depth of impurities as shown in Fig. Since the pad surface is not perfectly smooth and has asperities on it, the slurry flow in classical polishing operates in the regime of mixed or boundary lubrication.…”

Section: Deposition Mechanism Of Impuritiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Origin and distribution of redeposition layer in polished fused silica

Wang

Lin

Peng³

et al. 2015

Opt. Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 08/17/2015 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspxAbstract. Subsurface damage, especially photoactive impurities embedded in the redeposition layer, degrades the performance of high-energy optics in UV or high-power laser systems. The features and distributions of the redeposition layer in classical and magnetorheological finishing polished fused silica were detected and evaluated by a variety of measurements, such as secondary ion mass spectroanalyzer, atomic force microscope, scanning electron microscope, and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Then, a critical particle Reynolds number approach and chemical contribution were applied to interpret the deposition mechanism of impurities, on the basis of which a comprehensive redeposition model of polished optics was presented. Eventually, the relationship between distributions of redeposition materials in depth and freshly polished surface structure was investigated. Results show that the redeposition process of nanoparticles is dominated with the particle Reynolds number and the formation of a Ce─O─Si bond. The impurities in the redeposition layer are mixed with removed glass and present as a uniform dopant. Furthermore, there exists explicit correlation between redeposition layer and subsurface defected layer; so it is easy to achieve planarized surface in the polishing process.

show abstract

“…A review of the process and discussion of proposed mechanisms may be found in an article by Xin et al [22], and books on CMP, such as Doi et al [23], describe industrial approaches to controlling this form of wear in manufacturing. In this case, the polishing is intentional and carefully controlled, not a wear process to be reduced or avoided.…”

Section: Sliding Contact (Category Code: S)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tools for Imaging and Characterizing Worn Surfaces

Peter¹

2017

Tribosystem Analysis: A Practical Approach to the Diagnosis of Wear Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Types of Surface Damage and Wear ◾ 33 ◾ Abrasive wear ◾ Corrosive wear ◾ Flaking ◾ Fluting ◾ Burning ◾ Surface fatigue ◾ Initial pitting ◾ Destructive pitting ◾ Spalling Needless to say, there are many other examples of inconsistencies in naming wear in the technology literature. The point is that consistency in describing wear damage is important in a tribosystem analysis, especially if it forms part of an experience-based database. The challenges of consistent wear terminology have been discussed in a bilateral publication from U.S. and Russian perspectives [4]. Appendix 3A contains a discussion of wear nomenclature and a list of popular jargon.A system for categorizing the types of wear is now presented. The intent is to enable the investigator to organize wear by type of relative motion between bodies and its characteristic features. This approach also includes suggested shorthand codes that can be used to indicate the types of wear observed when conducting a tribosystem analysis.

show abstract

A fundamental model proposed for material removal in chemical–mechanical polishing

Cited by 47 publications

References 60 publications

Mechanism and Simulation of Removal Rate and Surface Roughness During Optical Polishing of Glasses

Mechanism and Simulation of Removal Rate and Surface Roughness During Optical Polishing of Glasses

Origin and distribution of redeposition layer in polished fused silica

Tools for Imaging and Characterizing Worn Surfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About