Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:35:57.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Copper Film Surface Properties on CMP Removal Rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2011

Yuchun Wang ,
Rajeev Bajaj ,
Gary Lam ,
Yezdi Dordi  and
Doyle Bennet
Yuchun Wang
Affiliation:
Fritz Redeker Applied Materials, CMP division, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Rajeev Bajaj
Affiliation:
Fritz Redeker Applied Materials, CMP division, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Gary Lam
Affiliation:
Fritz Redeker Applied Materials, CMP division, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Yezdi Dordi
Affiliation:
Fritz Redeker Applied Materials, CMP division, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Doyle Bennet
Affiliation:
Fritz Redeker Applied Materials, CMP division, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Get access

Summary

It has been observed that CMP removal rate of copper varies for films from different sources. While the film hardness and static wet etch rate in the absence of inhibitors are similar for various films, the static etch rate in the presence of inhibitors is significantly different. Analysis by AFM, XPS, and ion beam sputtering showed the film roughness and surface composition were different for different Cu films within 160 angstroms of the surface. Thus the different in Cu CMP removal rates can be explained by a synergetic effect of copper film roughness (grain size), surface composition, and effective adsorption of inhibitors. This explanation suggests that if polishing is initiated by an aggressive polishing step, removal rate of the remaining bulk copper films become more consistent. Based on these findings, the polishing slurry and process were further optimized.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 671: Symposium M – Chemical-Mechanical Polishing 2001–Advances and Future Challenges , 2001 , M3.2
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. Lagrange, S.; Brongersma, S.H.; Judelewicz, M.; Saerens, A.; Vervoort, I.; Richard, E.; Palmans, R.; Maex, K., Microelectronic Engineering, 50(N1-4), 449–457(2000).10.1016/S0167-9317(99)00314-7Google Scholar
2. Seah, C.H.; Mridha, S.; Chan, L.H., J. Vac. Sci. & Tech. A., 17, 1963–1967(1999).10.1116/1.581711Google Scholar
3. Itow, H.; Nakasaki, Y; Minamihaba, G.; Suguro, K.; Okano, H., Appl. Phys. Lett., 63, 934–936(1993).10.1063/1.109849Google Scholar
4. Merchant, H.D., J. Electronic Materials, 22, 631–638(1993).10.1007/BF02666409Google Scholar
5. Ivanov, I.C., and Ting, C.H., Proc. Fifth International CMP for ULSI Interconnection Conference (CMP-MIC), March 2-3, 2000, Santa Clara, CA, 461–470.Google Scholar
6. Cheung, R., presented at CMP User's Group Meeting, October, 2000, Santa Clara, CA.Google Scholar