2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2014.03.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In-situ CMP Endpoint Detection Using Acoustic Emission

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The need for such measurements requires the fitting of the polisher with costly friction plates (which are quite large and complex, and may not always be suitable for certain types of polishers), force sensors, multiplexers and signal amplifiers all of which need periodic calibrations. The scientific literature is filled with alternate methods [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] of inferring COF in CMP with the most popular of such approaches being centered around measuring platen motor current (PMC). During CMP, the wafer and the platen corotate at desired angular velocity setpoints.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The need for such measurements requires the fitting of the polisher with costly friction plates (which are quite large and complex, and may not always be suitable for certain types of polishers), force sensors, multiplexers and signal amplifiers all of which need periodic calibrations. The scientific literature is filled with alternate methods [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] of inferring COF in CMP with the most popular of such approaches being centered around measuring platen motor current (PMC). During CMP, the wafer and the platen corotate at desired angular velocity setpoints.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…That the polisher's intuition of when the surface condition plateaus out and when the pad damage sets in plays a critical role in deciding when to stop the polishing process. Consequently, significant process cycle time is consumed by repeated stoppage and surface inspections (visual or through the use of instruments) [8,9]. Quantitative surface roughness metrics do exist, and the most commonly used during polishing in industry is the average roughness parameter, denoted by Ra for one-dimensional profiles or Sa for two-dimensional areas [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, there are many alternate methods of inferring frictional effects in CMP that have been reported on in the scientific literature. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] The most popular of such methods measures the carrier or the platen motor current (CMC or PMC). [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] During polishings, both wafer and platen rotate at desired velocity setpoints.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%